Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, Signified.

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LLOYDS BOWMAKER BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

STANDARD CHARTERED MERCHANT BANK BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Energy Assets (Privatisation)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to privatise or denationalise any publicly owned energy assets.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I laid an order on 7 July taking over the British Gas Corporation's interests in certain offshore oilfields.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to deny the front page story in The Times today that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to announce further sales of publicly owned assets? Does he agree that to sell off such valuable publicly owned assets as British Petroleum and Britoil would be an act of monumental folly?

Mr. Walker: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The majority of BP is already owned by the private sector. The Chancellor will make his announcement at the appropriate time.

Dr. Owen: Does the Secretary of State agree that, were the Government to sell off BP shares, they would have a duty to the taxpayer, at the very least, to sell them when they could maximise the return to the taxpayer and that there could not be a more unfortunate time to sell BP shares than at present?

Mr. Walker: It is for the Government to judge when and how to sell and, having done so, to defend that judgment.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is going rather further than just considering the sale of BP shares and is actively looking at the introduction of private capital into the British Gas Corporation and the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Walker: The Government made it clear in their election manifesto that they were interested in seeing what areas of the public sector could sensibly and rationally be moved to the private sector. That examination is presently taking place and one result is the announcement that I made in answer to the main question about the transfer of BGC's oil assets as a result of an order laid on 7 July.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's dogmatic policy of returning our natural energy resources to private industry is a disaster course which is likely to lead to the position that we were in immediately after world war I when the Sankey report said that our natural energy resources were too important to be left to private greed and speculation?

Mr. Walker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's old-fashioned Socialist views, but I very much disagree with them.

Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that later today the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to give a written answer about the sale of assets within his responsibility. Is it not disgraceful that he cannot tell the House of Commonse about that during energy questions at the Dispatch Box and be open to questions from hon. Members? Is it not a symptom of the Government's arrogance that they want to use a subterfuge to declare their policy before they scurry off for the recess without providing the opportunity for a debate?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the normal practice that an oral question takes precedence over a written question and that it is not in order for the Secretary of State to refuse to answer questions in the area for which he is responsible, such as those relating to British Petroleum and gas and oil assets, on the excuse that a written question is being answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is clearly one which, to put it no higher, has been tabled with the Government's understanding? Will you give a ruling on this matter which, although I do not wish to delay Question Time, is of great importance?

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I normally take points of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. John Smith: I appreciate that, but this is of fundamental importance. I respectfully support the view that an oral question must take precedence over a written question. Will you, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that, instead of answering a proper question on the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State blandly said, "No, Sir," and sat down?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for answers from the Dispatch Box, nor can I anticipate what is to be in a written answer.

Domestic Gas and Electricity

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Energy by what percentages gas and electricity prices to the domestic consumer have risen since May 1979.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): Domestic gas prices have increased by 112 per cent. and domestic electricity prices have increased by 82 per cent. since May, 1979, but 2·5 million low-income customers obtain £350 million of assistance in meeting their fuel bills.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister come clean and admit that such terrific increases have been forced on the industry by the Government and that they should therefore be regarded as a concealed tax increase to be added to the already increased tax burden suffered by most families under this Government?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I completely disagree. The hon. Gentleman knows that five years ago commercial consumers of gas subsidised domestic consumers to a high degree. That is not in the best interests of industry. I trust that the hon. Member realises that the use of coal and oil accounts for more than 50 per cent. of the cost of electricity and that those costs have gone up much faster than inflation.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Minister confirm that tariffs have been skewed against industrial customers? Does he agree that it is high time that something was done to ensure a more equitable distribution of those costs, which are largely coal-related?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Unless we have sensible and proper pricing, particularly for gas, energy will not be properly used and our industry will not be competitive with industries in other countries.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that prices for domestic and industrial consumers have risen far faster than the rate of inflation? Is that not related to the Government's brutal policy of relying upon price to achieve conservation? Given the effect upon many millions of people — more than the number that he suggested — is it not time for a reappraisal of that approach?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if he acknowledged the considerable help that the Government have given to less well off consumers. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that there has been no increase recently in the price of electricity. One hopes that increases in electricity prices will be contained within the rate of inflation now that the adjustment mentioned earlier has taken place.

Mr. Waller: Is not the principal reason why domestic gas prices have had to rise faster than the inflation rate in the past three years that they were held down for party political reasons in the period up to the 1979 general election? Does not the way that that industry was treated in that period provide a good reason why political parties should not interfere in the future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend is right. If one is interested in jobs and in industry developing and competing fairly, one must have a realistic policy. That policy has been, and is being, tempered by what we are doing for the less well off consumers.

Mr. Rowlands: If inflation is seen by the Government as the number one enemy, how in he name of heaven does the Minister square their policy with a 112 per cent. increase in one of the fundamental heating costs for British families? Given that the British Gas Corporation made an enormous profit this year and that the Government are taking £500 million a year in the gas levy, could not they use a little of that money to reduce gas prices to the domestic consumer, thereby cutting inflation at a stroke?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said he would know that £350 million is spent on helping less well off domestic gas consumers. We inherited complete unrealism, and that required some work and effort. The hon. Gentleman's party did not pick up the bill, so there is no point in his criticising those who had to.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the electricity supply in the United Kingdom was coal-generated in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the figure for 1974.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): In 1974 coal generated 56 per cent. of the United Kingdom's public electricity supply. By 1982 this had risen to 74 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show that satisfactory progress has been made since 1974? Does he anticipate any significant change, one way or another, in that figure in the next few years?

Mr. Shaw: The House will recognise that coal will continue to be the major fuel at least until the end of the century. Any answer to my hon. Friend's question strictly depends on the competitive nature of pricing.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of the incident at Selby coalfield this week, less coal will be available for the generation of electricity? Does the Minister accept that there is great concern that a flooding of that nature can take place when the project has so far cost £1,000 million and is blessed with all the mining expertise and modern technology? Does he agree that there must be an investigation by Her Majesty's inspectorate, mining engineers and geologists to ascertain whether it was a one-off incident or whether it will be common to the Selby coalfield, and whether the coalfield will be safe?

Mr. Shaw: The Selby incident is unfortunate. It is primarily a matter for the coal board, which has issued a statement this afternoon. That throws a more informative light on the matter. The board must continue to deal with the incident.

Mr. Skeet: How will Ferrybridge, Eggborough, Drax and other power stations be supplied with coal if Selby cannot supply them? Will the incident have a long-term effect on the mine? How did the incident suddenly occur —a parliamentary party was there last week and had no knowledge of it? How did the problem suddenly surface?

Mr. Shaw: This is a matter for the NCB to assess. The first assessment suggests that the incident is such that it sees no reason for delaying the start of the second west


face, scheduled for late December. I do not think that that will be delayed. In relation to supply to power stations, my hon. Friend is aware of the large stocks available.

Mr. Eadie: I return to the question by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox). Does the Minister agree that coal-fired power stations in Britain remain partially unused because of lack of demand as a result of the economic recession triggered by the Government?

Mr. Shaw: Given the state of energy demand, there is a lack of demand for certain types of fuel. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) referred to the substantial preponderance of coal among the fuels required for electricity generation. That is the important point.

Severn Barrage

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made, in the context of the Severn barrage project, of possible methods of financing the project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The primary objective of the two-year study to be carried out by the Severn tidal power group, details of which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 May, will be to assess the technical and financial viability of a barrage built and operated by the private sector.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this highly desirable project will be difficult to finance in the public sector or the private sector because it is bound to take many years to come to fruition? Will he, therefore, seriously consider the possibility of its being financed by an indexed loan linked to the price of electricity?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the main purposes of the assessment is to examine finance. My hon. Friend mentions an interesting idea, the practicability of which is worth further examination. I recommend that my hon. Friend refers any ideas to the Severn tidal power group for its consideration.

Mr. Colvin: I welcome what Ministers have said this afternoon about the sale of capital assets in relation to energy, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not considered good business to sell capital assets to meet the deficit on current account—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the Severn barrage.

Mr. Colvin: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker, if you will forgive me for a second. Does my right hon. Friend not agree, therefore, that in the case of the Severn barrage, where a feasibility study is recommended by the Bondi committee which will cost about £45 million, that part of the money released by the sale of capital assets should be used to meet the cost of that project?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The whole purpose of the Severn tidal power group study is to consider the various aspects of these matters. The Government are putting money into that survey. We have to wait for it in terms of practical feasibility and financing.

Shell Oil Company

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the head of the Shell Oil Company.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 21 July.

Mr. Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware of the absolute chaos that resulted from the recent petrol price increases at the end of which it was the motorist who suffered? Just where is the competition in petrol pricing when one sees garages throughout London charging 183p? I am sure that in many other parts of the country the price is very much higher. When will the Secretary of State make it clear to petrol companies that it is time there was meaningful competition in petrol prices and not the enormous cartel which goes on and on?

Mr. Walker: We last had energy questions on the day that BP announced an increase which was never sustained because of the level of competition that exists.

Mr. Silvester: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has had consultations with the Shell Oil Company and other major oil companies in respect of the Petroleum Stocks (Amendment) Order, but has not consulted the Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents?

Mr. Walker: In my talks with Shell, we did not discuss that matter.

National Coal Board (Investments)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the value of investments in firms in the private sector held by the National Coal Board or its nominees.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The book value of the NCB's holdings in private sector associated companies or partnerships in the United Kingdom was £22·4 million as at 27 March 1982. Corresponding figures for March 1983 will appear in the board's accounts which will be published shortly.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is it not thoroughly undesirable that a public institution that makes huge losses at the taxpayer's expense should nevertheless have money tied up in private companies, the directors of which include former chairmen of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's view on this matter. Indeed, I must concur that we share a general view on privatisation. Steps will be taken with regard to the National Coal Board. My hon. Friend should know that both the board and the other shareholder in Sankey are taking active steps to sell that company.

Petrol and Diesel Prices

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will consult the various oil companies operating in the United Kingdom which sell petrol and diesel fuel to forecourt operators to see whether a system of stabilisation of prices can be agreed for urban, rural and island areas in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Petrol prices should be determined by competition, not agreement, between the oil companies.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury's tax take is 53 per cent. of the windfall which is 5·7p more this year than at the same time last year? Is he further aware that the maximum forecourt margin is 6·5 per cent. in the rural areas? There is no way in which people can operate in these circumstances. I accept that competition is desirable, but it is a deterrent for rural areas because of the subsidies granted to the urban districts. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that something is done for a generalisation of prices throughout the country?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Matters of taxation are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt my hon. Friend will channel his remarks in that direction.
In certain urban areas companies have been active with the temporary sales allowance, but now more encouragement has been given for the temporary sales allowance in rural areas. That is a move which I shall seek to encourage with the oil companies.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware that the effect of statutory istrument No. 909, the Petroleum Stocks (Amendment) Order, will inevitably mean that certain smaller petrol companies, many of which serve the rural areas, will have to find an extra £500,000 to finance their stocks, which will, by the Government's own admission, result in a 2p to 3p increase in petrol prices and will also, by the Government's own admission, result in the closure of outlets? Does the Minister realise that this will yet again disproportionately hit rural areas? Has he any intention of annulling or amending that order?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of that order is to ensure the security of supplies to those areas. I regard it as equally important to ensure the same security of supply to the rural areas as we do to the urban areas.

Mr. Arnold: Do not companies such as Nickerson Fuel Oils Limited, the directors of which went to see my right hon. Friend Lord Gray of Contin, face the possibility of going out of business as a result of the order?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have had no representations to that effect.

Mr. Bermingham: Bearing in mind that the Government's stated intention is to decrease inflation, and their announcement this afternoon of further sales in oil and energy, does the Minister agree that to sell off assets in oil and energy will diminish the Government's influence in trying to stabilise energy prices across the country, for example for petrol? Does he further agree that what he is doing is minimising the efforts that he can make?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would be interested to know whether BP operates a more competitive policy than other companies in the rural areas. If it does, and the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that, I shall consider his question.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that competition should not be organised by the Government, and the important thing is that any person or organisation in the petrol business should be able to offer lower prices to get a higher market share without turning itself into a major oil company?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is a good thing. A significant factor for the rural areas is the tremendous effort many of these companies make to maintain those supplies.

Gas Meter Readers

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many meter readers are employed in the gas industry; and what were the figures in 1981 and 1982.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The latest figure available, at 31 March 1983, was 1,588. At the same date in 1981 and 1982 the figures were 1,695 and 1,670 respectively.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Minister aware that meters are not being read, that slot meters are not being emptied and that this is causing great indignation, particularly with regard to estimated accounts? Is the Minister further aware that many people with slot meters are afraid to go out in case the meters are broken into and they are made responsible for the loss? Will he make representations to the chairman of British Gas to employ more meter readers at a time of high unemployment and thereby provide a better service?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the problem, although I think that perhaps it applies more in certain areas than in others. I shall draw this matter to the attention of the chairman of British Gas and see what action he thinks appropriate. I know that British Gas is concerned about this matter and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the attention of the House.

Sir Michael Shaw: What discussions have taken place among interested industries to see whether joint readings can be made, so saving labour?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Various discussions have taken place and various studies have identified certain economies that could be made. However, there are considerable practical difficulties, and it would also take a considerable time to bring such a scheme into operation. Therefore it would be misleading to say that there is a quick answer along these lines, although I hope that all the various public utilities concerned will continue to consider this matter with a view to bringing it into effect.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware of the particular concern among pensioners in the SEGAS area about the long delays—more than six months in some instances—in emptying their prepayment meters. Is he aware that this is resulting in the build-up of substantial sums which are becoming the target for break-ins and burglary? Will he make a particular effort with regard to the SEGAS area when he approaches British Gas on this problem?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that British Gas and the area concerned are worried about this problem. I shall draw to the attention of the chairman of British Gas what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members feel that there is no reason why gas meter readers should not read electricity meters at the same time? What are the significant practical difficulties that make this obvious solution so difficult to achieve?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What was raised earlier was the issue of common readings — probably a reference


back to the telephone system and central computer control. That, in simple physical terms—installation and so on—raises short-term practical problems.

Mr. Rowlands: As hon. Members on both sides of the House have dealt with the problems arising from meter reading, will the hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously and act urgently on it? Is he aware that we are reflecting a growing problem?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Greenway: How much of the standing charge is accounted for by meter reading? Am I right in suggesting that it is substantial?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Meter reading is obviously a factor, particularly in relation to British Gas, which is the subject of the question. Various ways have been identified in reports on the standing charge to achieve greater economies. I shall do what I can to press British Gas to implement any savings that can be made.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the problems that have been raised about difficulties in the gas industry apply also in the electricity industry? Will he comment on the case of a constituent of mine who has not had her electricity meter emptied for eight months, the result being that the meter is full and she is effectively cut off from supplies? That appears to be the policy, at least of the LEB, which is not emptying meters on certain council estates.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of that case I shall be happy to take it up with the chairman of the area board.

British Gas

Mr. Andrew Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met the chairman of the British Gas Corporation on 20 July.

Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more gas boards are sending out estimated bills, some of a very high order, which are causing distress and problems in particular to pensioners and those on low incomes? Will he discuss that with the chairman when he next meets him?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the problem. If a consumer disagrees with the estimate provided, there is provision on the back of the bill for him to submit his own reading, and the gas region will, on receipt of that, re-issue a bill based on the consumer's figures. I hope that that fact will become more widely known.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) to ask that supplementary question, but I should make it plain to the House that in future I shall follow the practice of my precedessors of not calling supplementaries to questions which do not reveal their subject matter, other than open questions to the Prime Minister.

Natural Gas

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of natural gas sold by the British Gas Corporation is imported.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Between 20 and 25 per cent. of the British Gas Corporation's gas supplies are imported, all from the Norwegian sector of the Frigg field.

Mr. Carlisle: Is this not far too high a proportion for Britain, which has substantial gas reserves of its own? That is a clear reason why it was necessary to pass the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act. How is that Act progressing in encouraging greater exploration of our gas reserves in the North Sea?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: British Gas has a responsibility for security and continuity of supply and it entered into these contracts, I believe rightly, to fulfil its obligations. However, I find it encouraging—I hope that my hon. Friend does, too — that gas activity on the United Kingdom continental shelf is now greater than for some time. Seventeen exploration appraisal wells were started last year in the southern basin compared with only two in the previous year and none in the three years before that, so the trend is encouraging.

Mr. Eggar: What attitude will my right hon. Friend take should British Gas decide to try to purchase Sleipner gas from the Norwegian sector?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is the subject of commercial negotiation between British Gas and the various Norwegian bodies. The chairman is keeping in touch with me and my right hon. Friend. At this stage I can only say that negotiations are continuing and that we shall consider the issue when proposals are to be made.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the current level of North sea oil development activity.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am satisfied with the current level of North sea oil developments; 22 oilfields are in production and two more are expected to come on stream shortly.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that the taxation regime has led to a severe gap in orders for fabrication yards, which is causing real concern, and that there is no evidence that it can be plugged? Does he also acknowledge that although oil development is going ahead, the collapse of the gas-gathering system has meant that many of the associated gas developments are not going ahead and that is why we are having to pay up to 35p a therm to import Norwegian gas?

Mr. Walker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the last point. As for the general position, the announcements made in the Budget and the changes that are taking place—in royalties, for example—will be of considerable assistance in the spheres mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skeet: There have been 147 significant discoveries of oil and gas in the North sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent changes in legislation have made it probable that at least 20 fields will be developed?

Mr. Walker: I should not wish to put an estimate on the figures, but I believe that a great deal of activity will now take place to the benefit of the country and of the supplying industries.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State concur with the view of the previous Minister of State, Department of Energy, Lord Gray, that there is one platform construction yard too many in Scotland?

Mr. Walker: I do not know the specific statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The new measures which are being taken should mean more for that industry.

National Union of Mineworkers

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers; and what he expects to discuss.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met national officers of all three mining unions on 29 June.

Mr. Adley: Was my right hon. Friend able to tell them, as he told the House today in answer to question No. 3, that the proportion of coal-generated electricity had increased in the last eight or nine years from 56 to 74 per cent.? As that is a clear indication that the Government are committed to the future of the coal industry, does he agree that it might be helpful to establish some sort of working relationship with Mr. Arthur Scargill?

Mr. Walker: I appreciated the manner in which the officers of the three mining unions came to the meeting and discussed the problems of the industry. During that meeting I made it clear that the Government intended to see that the coal industry had a good and successful future. I was able to point out that, during the years of the Conservative Administration, £3 billion had been invested in the coal industry.

Mr. Eadie: As the Secretary of State has revealed some of the discussions that he had with the NUM representatives, will he say whether he discussed with them the further uses of coal, such as liquefaction and gasification? Is he aware that the NUM is getting sick and tired of Government excuses for not starting the Point of Ayr pilot scheme?

Mr. Walker: I am anxious to look at any scheme that is designed to make a sensible use of coal, including liquefaction. During a considerable recession, the Government have made enormous resources available to the coal industry, which have enabled it to store surplus coal and to enable improvements to take place in consumption in various spheres. I shall be eager to look at any suggestion for the practical, sensible and economic use of coal.

Severn Barrage

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is yet in a position to report on the consultations with local authorities and other interested parties over the proposals in the Severn barrage committee's report.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Views and comments by local authorities on the Severn barrage committee's report were fully considered. With regard to the study announced on 12 May, I understand that the Severn tidal power group is in touch with local authorities and will maintain this contact.

Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Have any representations been received from bodies,

public or private, against the proposal for a barrage from Brean Down to Lavernock Point? If so, what? If not, what is causing the Government to drag their feet in implementing the feasibility study recommended by the Bondi committee?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Government are not dragging their feet. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a short time ago, we are financing 50 per cent. of the study that is being carried out. Members of the study will be having discussions not only with local authority representatives, but with the various environmental interests, the Countryside Commission and others. We must see how the group gets on; and, as I said, the Government are committed to the financing of it.

British Gas (Offshore Oil Interests)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to dispose of the British Gas Corporation's offshore oil interests.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to complete the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's offshore oil interests as soon as possible.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of letting the sale of offshore oil interests take as long as the sale of onshore oil interests, which has been entirely under the control of the British Gas Corporation? Will he further confirm that potential oil assets will include producing assets and prospective acreage?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I confirm the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I have no complaint about the progress that has been made in the disposal of offshore and onshore interests over the period for which I have been responsible.

Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in replying to question No. 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), he gave a different answer from that which he gave the hon. Member for Engield, North (Mr. Eggar)? The Government's proposals to sell off public assets are coming out in dribs and drabs. Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed of the fact that he is unprepared to answer questions on the Floor of the House in the knowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make a specific statement later? We shall be fobbed off with a written answer on which the Government cannot be questioned. Is this not the arrogance of power?

Mr. Walker: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman resumes his place after such an onslaught, he should try to stop smiling.

Mr. John Evans: I am not smiling.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer questions for which he is responsible and I shall answer questions for which I am responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the practice and procedures of the House relating to parliamentary questions.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): This is a matter for the House and could be included in a general review of procedure.

Mr. Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House follow the exchange on question No. 1 between the Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? Can he imagine any previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer whom he and I have known—Selwyn Lloyd, Reggie Maudling, Ian Macleod or Tony Barber —treating the House and their senior Cabinet colleagues so disdainfully? Should we not have a Select Committee on the parliamentary manners of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Biffen: I regret that I was not in the Chamber for the exchanges on the first question on the Order Paper. The issue which the hon. Gentleman raises could well be included in a general review of procedure.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Leader of the House tell us what he thinks is the usefulness of Question Time if the Chancellor of the Exchequer flatly refuses to answer straight questions that are put to him?

Mr. Biffen: I have always found Question Time of immense value in the parliamentary battle. The questions that are not answered often prove as useful in the campaign as those that are.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into the number of questions that are tabled to each Minister? When he has done so, will he write to me or make the information known in some way so that the House can assess which Department attracts the most questions? Is he aware that the Department of Transport seems consistently to attract the most questions? Will he therefore try to ensure that the parliamentary timetable is scheduled to take account of this?

Mr. Biffen: Should a general review of procedure encompass Question Time, I am sure that the point made by my hon. Friend will be considered.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the rearrangement of Question Time, because questions that are taken on Monday afternoons come up once every three weeks whereas those taken on Wednesdays, which include the important Question Time attended by the Secretary of State for Scotland, come up every four weeks?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have already raised this issue. I am anxious and prepared to consider it through the usual channels if there is a desire for change. Were any change essayed, it would affect many other questions.

Mr. John Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what happened this afternoon when, in response to

question No. 1, the Secretary of State for Energy declined to give information to the House which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will indubitably give in a written answer within the next few minutes? Is that the way in which the Government intend to treat questions that are tabled for Ministers who are responsible for their Departments? What does he think of this practice, bearing in mind his responsibility to protect the interests of the whole House? Does he agree that those who ask questions are entitled to receive honest answers from Ministers?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point could be considered in a general review of procedure. I shall refer his comments and anxieties to those of my right hon. Friends at whom they are directed. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that this is not the first time that such a practice has been adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRIVY SEAL

Magistrates (Appointments)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Lord Privy Seal how many magistrates appointments are made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Biffen: Since 1974 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made 2,346 appointments to Benches in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

Mr. Arnold: In addition to appointing magistrates, does not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have a moral responsibility for the conditions in which the courts have to operate? Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the dismay that is felt by the members of the Stockport Bench over the delay in the Home Office in approving the site of the new court house?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the responsibility for that consideration rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall certainly convey to him my hon. Friend's sentiments.

Dependent Territories

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose the creation of a Select Committee on the British dependent territories.

Mr. Biffen: No, Sir. Matters relating to the British dependent territories will be within the general terms of reference of the departmental Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it is re-established.

Mr. Stanbrook: Unlike most subjects considered by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Parliament is directly responsible for the economic and social welfare and defence of residents of British dependent territories. Such people cannot expect independence, and most do not desire it. In the circumstances, would it not be right for them to have their own regular scrutiny of their own interests through a Committee of this House?

Mr. Biffen: No. I am anxious not to encourage the proliferation of departmental Select Committees, for I think that that would react against their impact. I take that view all the more because the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has the power to create a Sub-Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: What would be the promotional chances of any Tory member of a Select Committee who criticised the Prime Minister over the Falklands?

Mr. Biffen: The Tory Party has an unequalled record of promoting critics of Prime Ministers.

Mr. Adley: How do the Government intend to give effect to the pledge in the Gracious Speech that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted on any future arrangements for the dependent territory?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows that that question goes much wider than the establishment of a departmental Select Committee. He may be encouraged by the fact that the departmental Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has already taken a keen interest in Hong Kong.

Procedure Review

Mr. Chapman: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to complete his consideration of a general review of procedure covering all aspects of the House's business.

Mr. Biffen: As soon as I am satisfied of the general wish of the House in this matter.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend take this as an earnest consideration that a Select Committee on Procedure should be set up, to which hon. Members could be invited to make suggestions or representations on any procedural matter, especially Prime Minister's Question Time and the method and format of considering Bills in Committee?

Mr. Biffen: The last occasion on which a Procedure Committee with general terms of reference was established was in 1976–77. I think my hon. Friend is entitled to suggest that we might consider the matter again. Should the House so resolve, I am certain that the topics he has mentioned would be very much at the heart of the Committee's considerations.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a growing body of opinion on both sides of the House that Back Benchers are being denied the right to question Ministers on important matters of Government policy, because of the increasing use of the subterfuge of giving answers to written questions on such matters? Will he take this issue seriously, as oral questions are the only check that we have on the Executive? Ministers are dodging their responsibilities at the Dispatch Box by giving answers to written questions.

Mr. Biffen: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that a Procedure Committee with general terms of reference will want to consider the use of Question Time. I note that irritation has been caused today.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

MINIS

Mr. Eggar: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Departments are currently using MINIS or its equivalent.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): All the Departments taking part in the financial management initiative are either using or making good

progress in establishing management systems which, like MINIS, provide the information needed to monitor in detail the matching of resources to objectives.

Mr. Eggar: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee clearly said that it wanted MINIS or equivalent systems introduced into all Departments of State? Is he completely satisfied with the progress that has been made in the past year and a half?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend knows that a White Paper on the work of Departments in this regard will be published soon. I assure him that a quiet revolution has been taking place in Whitehall and beyond. The Civil Service is now considerably smaller than in 1979—it numbers fewer than 650,000—and next year it will be the smallest since the second world war. Moreover, Ministers and senior civil servants are more involved in the management of their Departments than ever before. That is leading to cost-effective and sensible management regimes throughout the Civil Service.

Mr. Williams: As access to information raises questions about efficiency and security, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the House has a statement before the recess on the vetting procedures that will be applied when the Department of Industry announces in September the decision that it has already taken to replace 42 of its security officers with members of a private security firm? Will he explain why that statement will not be made until September, when the House will be in recess?

Mr. Hayhoe: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Equal Opportunities

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are his latest plans concerning the implementation of equal opportunity policy in the Civil Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that in the autumn a programme of action on employment opportunities for women in the Civil Service will be announced and that a report on personnel policies and procedures, as they affect equal opportunities for members of ethnic minorities, will also be published.

Mr. Janner: Does that proposal include the required ethnic and sex monitoring as laid down by the new code of the Commission for Racial Equality and the draft revised code of the Equal Opportunities Commission? If not, why not?

Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that the operative date of the code produced by the Commission for Racial Equality is 1 April next year. Guidance on how to operate under it will be issued to Departments. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there has been some experimentation on ethnic monitoring in the Civil Service. That has been shown to be effective, and it is being extended.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes the statements of the Commission for Racial Equality and of the Equal Opportunities Commission pointing to ghosts that do not exist tend to cause more trouble than good?

Mr. Hayhoe: It would be a brave man who, from the Dispatch Box—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Be brave then.

Mr. Hayhoe: —was prepared to defend every statement made by such quangos. I am not that brave.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister agree that treatment of maternity leave is central to equal career opportunities for women in the Civil Service? Does he recall that his Department rejected any improvement in such provision a matter of days before a joint report on the subject was published in December? When can we expect the Government's response to that report, which has been on the table for eight months?

Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection of the Government's statement when the review body's report was published is wrong. He has been misled by press reports at the time. As I said, the Government's response will be announced in the autumn.

Written Questions

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will ensure that, in respect of those matters upon which he answers questions, the terms of Standing Order No. 8(7) are strictly complied with, and that an answer is given on the day specified by notice of a priority written question.

Mr. Hayhoe: I always try to answer priority written questions on the due date, but occasionally the necessary research takes longer and a full answer is then given as soon as possible.

Mr. Spearing: I appreciate that written answers for priority cannot always be given on the day named, for the reasons that the Minister has given. However, does he agree that there is a notional day procedure for a non-priority written question and that the answer is expected within about one week after that notional day? Will he examine the performance of Departments on that aspect?

Mr. Hayhoe: I confirm that the Select Committee's report showed that ordinary written questions should be answered within a working week of their being tabled. The House has generally accepted that. I try to follow that practice, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when the questions are very involved, as is often the case with questions to the Treasury, it is impossible to meet the one-week requirement. In those circumstances, a letter is normally sent to the hon. Member concerned explaining what is going on. If the hon. Gentleman has any special cases in mind, I shall look into them or draw them to the attention of those of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for them.

Dispersal Policy

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any plans to disperse some civil servants presently working in central London to outer London boroughs.

Mr. Hayhoe: Not within the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979, but the Laboratory of the Government Chemist will be relocated in 1988 from central London to Teddington.

Mr. Chapman: As traffic congestion continues to get worse in central London, and as there is a prospect of London having its first completed orbital motorway in

three years' time, is not my hon. Friend's answer significant? Might not the trend to have fewer civil servants located in central London and more located in outer London boroughs be convenient for the public and, perhaps, more civil servants?

Mr. Hayhoe: One of the reasons for discontinuing the dispersal initiative of some years ago was the heavy public expenditure involved. The points that my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account if it is necessary to relocate work.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the responsibilities of the Minister for the Civil Service so far as the dispersal of civil servants is concerned.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Minister for the Civil Service is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979.

Mr. Arnold: Why have the Government been so coy about telling the Table Office what my right hon. Friend's responsibilities are in this matter? For example, in the development of policy, what consideration is given to ensuring that a sufficient number of senior civil servants are employed outside London?

Mr. Hayhoe: I cannot comment on the coyness or non-coyness of the Table Office. I should have thought that that was a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I have always found it extremely helpful in dealing with hon. Members. Information about the responsibilities of the Management and Personnel Office is to be found in documents that are available to the House.
With regard to senior civil servants, I am not aware of any particular case that is pending. If my hon. Friend has one in mind, perhaps he will draw my attention to it.

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to dispersing civil servants is to disperse Civil Service work? Will he encourage our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to disperse more of his Department's functions to its provincial centres.

Mr. Hayhoe: As I have already said, an important issue that must be taken into account when considering dispersal is the cost to the taxpayer. It is important to ensure that we achieve the greatest possible value for money and do not get involved in dispersal programmes that will be costly to the taxpayer.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that several Departments still have their typing done 300 or 400 miles outside London? The work is carried up and down the motorways by lorry. If the typing is to be done outside London, could my hon. Friend at least ensure that there are remote computer terminals?

Mr. Hayhoe: Progress is being made in introducing information technology throughout the Civil Service. My hon. Friend is an expert on such matters. He will know that such a process takes time and involves considerable cost. I believe that typing work is sent out of London only when, in the judgment of those responsible for the management of the Department, that is the most cost-effective way of doing it.

Energy Assets (Sale)

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As was made clear during the exchanges at Energy Question Time, it is common knowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will today give a written answer in which he will detail assets to be sold by the Government, pursuant to a statement that he made in the House some weeks ago. It is also common knowledge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has briefed the press on the contents of his reply.
By question No. 1 today my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) specifically asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he had
any plans to privatise or denationalise any publicly owned energy assets.
I believe that reference will be made in the Chancellor's written reply to energy assets that are to be sold off. Those assets are in the legal ownership of the Secretary of State. He holds them as a result of legislation passed by the House.
If a Minister, when he is answering for his own responsibilities, does not answer a direct question, but later in the day another Minister answers the question in written form, as a result of which he is not open to oral questioning, is that not a gross contempt of the House? Is not that manipulation such as we have not experienced in the House in recent times? Is it not gross arrogance on the part of the Government? Do you not have responsibility, not just to maintain the rules of order, but to ensure that Parliament is a meaningful place in which legitimate questions, properly asked, receive non-deceitful answers?

Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy a specific question about BP shares. We are now told by the press that there is a written question for answer which deals specifically with BP shares. I understand the dilemma of the Secretary of State. It is clearly stated in "Erskine May" that it is permissible for a Minister to refuse to answer a question because there is another similar oral question on the Order Paper, but it is not permissible for him to do so if the other question is a written question. Serious doubts about the whole practice of the placing of questions arise from the question on the Order Paper to which we are all referring.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now joined us. In view of his wide experience of selling shares, from Amersham to Britoil—his experience could hardly be described as very successful — would it not be reasonable for him to give us now the statement that he ought to have made? As the Leader of the House is here, would it not be reasonable for him to whisper in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's ear that this controversy could be quickly settled if the Chancellor were now to give to the House, in an oral statement, the answer that he is giving to the press through a written question? That would help us to get on with today's business.
I know that it does not come within your purview, Mr. Speaker, to state in what form questions should be answered, but it may be within your purview to tell the Government that, in view of the refusal of the Secretary of State to answer a specific question relating to energy,

if there is anything in the Chancellor's written answer which relates specifically to energy they should answer the question orally now.

Mr. John Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to written question No. 337 in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). As we all understand, that question is to be the vehicle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will use to answer the question on asset sales. However, it does not refer specifically to energy sales. I accept that you are not responsible for the content of ministerial answers, but I asked a specific question on sales, on a matter for which the Secretary of State has direct responsibility. I also asked the Secretary of State to deny the leak in The Times today which foreshadowed the announcement which the Chancellor is apparently due to make.
Finally, I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of Back-Bench Members. Is there not a grave danger that if Ministers are embarrassed by questions for oral answer, which have to be tabled a fortnight before they are to be answered, they will get round the problem by asking one of their hon. Friends to table a friendly question for written answer? That is not in the interests of the House of Commons or the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the time of the House. I think that I should give a ruling on the matter.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to avoid making a statement to the House and that he is skulking around the corridors issuing briefings to the press. The importance of this matter extends beyond the question immediately at issue.
Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House for a statement to be made on the Government's public expenditure plans. That issue is tremendously important to all Back Benchers. On your election, Mr. Speaker, you restated your commitment to the protection of Back Benchers. Every city in the land is under threat from the effects of the cuts in the National Health Service — [Interruption.] In my constituency, Mr. Chairman, the Yorkshire regional hospital—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not the Chairman. However, I have the drift of his supplementary question.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may complete his sentence.

Mr. Madden: It is imperative that, before the House rises for the recess, the Chancellor should make a statement on the extent of public expenditure cuts. Every Member of Parliament—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I have the hon. Member's point. I believe that I can deal with the matter. We are about to move on to discuss the motion on the Adjournment of the House. It would be eminently reasonable to discuss this subject on that motion and suggest that the House should not adjourn until a statement has been made.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whilst one would wish to bow to your suggestion that the debate on the Adjournment provides a suitable opportunity to raise this issue, I doubt whether the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Energy will be present during that debate, in view of their usual attendance in the House. Would it be in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give to the House the information that he is about to convey in a written reply? If he will not do so, are we not entitled to suggest that, in view of his wider responsibilities, the Leader of the House should comment on this reprehensible action?

Mr. Hal Miller: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from anything else, you are the custodian of parliamentary behaviour. On question No. 19 I asked the Leader of the House if he could imagine any previous Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer whom he and I have known — Selwyn Lloyd, Reggie Maudling, Iain Macleod, or Tony Barber—behaving as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has behaved. They would have come to the House and made their statements, whatever the issue. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this action represents a change in parliamentary behaviour. The Leader of the House, who really cares about parliamentary behaviour and good manners, seemed to accept that that was a valid point. May I suggest that the House could overcome this impasse if the Leader of the House had a gentle word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the good manners shown by his predecessors.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule on one of the points that have been raised. Is it in order for a Secretary of State, who is in possession of information that is to be given by a colleague later in the day, to refuse to impart it to an hon. Member who asks a specific and direct question about it?

Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need take any more points of order, as I think I have been helped enough. My ruling on the point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is that that is frequently done. We may regret it, but it has frequently been done in the past.

Mr. John Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much regret having to raise this issue again. I have never quarrelled with the Chair, and do not intend to do so now, but you suggested this might be a suitable subject to raise on the motion on the summer Adjournment. Although I accept that the question that was asked may be a suitable subject for such debate, my question is for you to answer. I should like you to rule on whether Ministers have behaved properly in answering questions in the House. Surely that is not a subject for debate. It is for you to give a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, and you may have to give some thought to it.

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman raised his first point of order he said that I was not responsible for the answers that Ministers gave at the Dispatch Box. That is sadly the fact. Well, perhaps not sadly, but gladly the fact. I am not responsible for what is said from the

Dispatch Box and, furthermore, I know nothing of this supposed leak. What I do know is that the question tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was put on the Order Paper on Friday and that Ministers have up to a week to answer written questions. I have no knowledge whether this question is to be answered today, or some time before the House rises.

Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I might be able to help you on that last point. Since you initially ruled we have had a conversation about when the written reply can be expected, and the Treasury has informed us that the answer will come over to the House at 4 pm. Thus, in 20 minutes' time the question and answer will be available to the House. Hon. Members may be tempted to continue to probe this issue until the answer is delivered. I understand that it would then be in order to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, on the basis of the information contained in that answer.
It is rather strange that we should be tempted to raise points of order until that question is answered, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House are in the Chamber and can solve the problem very easily. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they are putting you in an extremely difficult position. Having heard this controversy, it is perfectly open to the Leader of the House to respond now. It would have been open to the Government to argue that they were holding back the information until the Stock Exchange closed, but that is clearly not the case if the Treasury intends to reveal the information at 4 pm.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, you said that such a refusal frequently happened. That may or may not be the case, but many of us would like you to rule on whether that should happen and whether it is right that it should happen. Ministers often use written answers to reply to questions that should be answered by statements. However, that is not the issue today. The point is that the first question on the Order Paper to the Department of Energy relates, in part, to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to give in the form of a written answer. We would like a ruling on that rather narrow and specific point. Is it in order for a Minister to refuse to answer at Question Time on the basis that a written question will be answered at a later date?

Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat that I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give.

Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can assist you. Under the Labour Government in 1974 exactly the same situation arose in my case. A question to the Secretary of State for Industry about British Leyland was pre-empted by a written answer.

Mr. John Smith: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one more point of order.

Mr. Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House now? The House knows that he must have in his possession the answer that he proposes to give in written form. He is probably sitting with it in his hand. Is there anything in the rules of order


that would prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making a statement? The House clearly wants one, but the right hon. Gentleman clearly does not wish to give it.

Mr. Speaker: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to make a statement there is no reason why he should not make it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] Order. I must be allowed to finish what I was saying. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, there is no reason why he should not make a statement after the statement on the EC Budget Council.

Mr. Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that any point of order can possibly arise. I have given my ruling.

Mr. Smith: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement at the end of the statement on the EC Budget Council? Many hon. Members are incensed at what is happening, because the issue is important. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to get to his feet now to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement immediately after that on the EC Budget Council? That would greatly help the House.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): To help the House, may I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members that, after the statement that is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised one point of order already and has heard the remarks of the Leader of the House. I do not propose to take any more points of order on this matter.

European Budget Council

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of last week's Budget Council in Brussels, at which I represented the United Kingdom. The Council had a discussion with the Parliament and finally established a draft supplementary and amending budget No. 2 for 1983 and a draft budget for 1984. These will now go forward for consideration by the European Parliament.
The draft supplementary budget No. 2 for 1983, as established by the Council, in response to a presidency compromise, makes provision for budget refunds for 1982 for the United Kingdom and Germany under the risk-sharing provisions of the 26 October agreement of 370 million ecu. The United Kingdom's share in this is around 305 million ecu-310 million ecu. In our view the total figure should have been 495 million ecu, including 408 million ecu for the United Kingdom. We are therefore left with a shortfall of about 100 million ecu gross, or 75 million ecu net. The equivalent sterling figures are £58 million gross and £43 million net. I voted against the presidency compromise, which included this provision, but all others voted for it, except the Danes, who abstained. I therefore made it clear to the Council, for formal inclusion in the minutes, that it had failed to discharge in full its obligations to the United Kingdom and that the community institutions must take the necessary action as a matter of urgency to ensure that the United Kingdom receives its full entitlement. The budgetary processes for 1983 are not yet completed, and the Government intend to ensure that this matter is resolved satisfactorily.
The presidency compromise was also unsatisfactory in that it included a cut of only 50 million ecu in the extra provision for agricultural spending proposed by the Commission. I argued strongly for a larger reduction.
The draft budget for 1984, as now established by the Council, will make provision of 1,202 million ecu for refunds to the United Kingdom and Germany, including 991 million ecu for the United Kingdom. In contrast with the 1983 supplementary, this gross provision correctly provides for a refund to the United Kingdom of 750 million ecu net, and so honours the Stuttgart undertaking fully.
The draft budget provides for agricultural guarantee expenditure of 16·5 billion ecu, as recommended by the Commission, but the Council decided to place 250 million ecu out of this total in the "reserve" chapter of the budget rather than "on the line". Together with two other delegations I argued for cuts of 1 billion ecu in the provision for agricultural guarantee spending, but this proposal was finally out-voted.
The draft budget makes provision for total non-obligatory expenditure, including the non-obligatory element in the United Kingdom and German refunds, to rise by half the maximum rate—that is, by 5·8 per cent. — but the combination of the large provision for agriculture with the necessary provision for United Kingdom and German refunds left little room inside the own resources ceiling for increases in the regional development and social funds.
Before either budget is finally adopted there will be extended negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament. During this period the Government will take all appropriate steps to ensure that the United Kingdom receives its entitlement to refunds for 1982 in full. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will raise the matter at the Foreign Affairs Council at the earliest possible opportunity. I am sure that the Government can count on support for this from all sections of the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the sad and sorry tale of the Government's performance which he has presented to the House this afternoon is a far cry from the Prime Minister's promise in her Winston Churchill memorial lecture? She said:
I cannot play Sister Bountiful to the Community while my own electorate are being asked to forgo improvements in the fields of health, education, welfare and the rest.
The right hon. Lady explicitly committed her Government to seeking a broad balance between Britain's contributions and receipts, and she persuaded the House on 16 July 1979 to agree, by a unanimous resolution, to fundamental reforms of the budgetary arrangements so that Britain's contribution to the budget would not be greater than its receipts.
Given that clear commitment, is not the Government's record on the European Community budget one of continuing and mounting failure, and will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that failure arises not least because the Government have no consistent policy towards EC spending? The Treasury claims to be seeking control of the Common Market budget, but such is the power of the farming lobby within the Conservative party that the Government have shown no serious intention or commitment to secure a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, which lies at the heart of the Common Market budgetary problems. Instead, the Government have allowed the cost of that absurd and wasteful policy to spiral.
The Financial Secretary referred to the draft budget for agricultural guarantee expenditure of £16·5 billion ecu, or more than £10,000 million. Does he recall that the expenditure on the CAP for this year is 41 per cent. higher than it was last year? In those circumstances, what guarantee can he give to the House that the budgeted amount of 16·5 billion ecu for next year will not be exceeded?
To return to the Financial Secretary's failure at the weekend, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls that he was quoted in The Times as saying:
We have lost a battle but not the war—and it will be a war to get it back.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House this afternoon what weapons he intends to deploy in the war to ensure that we get our full refund? Will he explain why the Government have thrown away the key and central weapon, which is a veto on any increase in the 1 per cent. ceiling on VAT contributions? Why are the Government pussyfooting about, and why did they, at the Stuttgart summit and at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting, refuse to say categorically that Britain would veto an increase in the VAT ceiling?
When the Financial Secretary talks in his statement of the Community institutions taking the necessary action as a matter of urgency to ensure that the United Kingdom

receives its full entitlement, what is that necessary action? When he says that the Government will take all appropriate steps to ensure that Britain receives its agreed entitlement, what will those appropriate steps be? Will the Government measure up to the task and block further spending on the common agriculture policy? Will they veto an increase in the VAT ceiling?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why he has suffered a further humiliation in a long line of humiliations, and why, for all the Government's bluster, contributions to the Common Market have been running at £100 million more in real terms under the Conservative party than they did under the Labour party, is that the other Community Governments have got the measure of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Prime Minister? They know, as we know, that the Government's sound and fury signifies nothing, and that they are willing to wound but, as ever, afraid to strike.

Mr. Ridley: That remark comes ill from a member of the Labour party. I remind the House that our Common Market partners got the measure of the Labour Government's resolve and did not give them back even one ecu, whereas this Government have obtained more than £2·5 billion in refunds. At the Budget Council last week we secured agreement to gross refunds for the United Kingdom and Germany of 1,570 million units of account. We would have liked our full entitlement, but we received a great deal through the Council.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked about the power of the farming lobby, and it is true that nine out of 10 Community members would wish to increase expenditure on the common agricultural policy. We are always in a weak position in trying to control that expenditure. However, although we have allowed 16·5 billion ecu in the budget for next year, that brings us to the ceiling of what can be spent. There is no question of extra spending on agriculture next year, because the ceiling has beeen reached in the budget which has been put before the Council. At last we have a real weapon to control agricultural spending, which must now rest within that ceiling.
The hon. Gentleman might not know that last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs proposed a strict financial guideline to control future agricultural spending. That will be negotiated by the special Council, culminating in the Council in Athens in December, and at the Athens Council we intend to achieve proper control of agricultural spending.
The hon. Gentleman asked about future action on refunds. This is the first stage of the budgetary process. The proposal must go to Parliament, return to the Council and then go back to Parliament before the matter is concluded. During those exchanges there will be ample opportunity for my right hon. Friends to press their case and to do all that is possible to make the Community live up to its undertakings and its obligations. We shall do that.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the obligation to Britain in respect of the 1982 refunds is as legally binding on the Community as the obligation to meet price guarantees to farmers? Has he conveyed to his colleagues on the Council the growing impatience, even among those most committed to the European idea, at the chicanery and prevarication that continue to surround this matter?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The regulations embodying the 26 October 1982 agreement create an obligation to pay sums to the United Kingdom under the risk-sharing arrangements. Last week, some other member states were arguing about the precise method of calculating these sums. However, the amount which the Council eventually included was based on an arbitrary cut and not on any principle.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members were glad to read his statement in the press that he was prepared—and therefore presumably the Government are—to go to war over this matter? Does he think that the threat was taken seriously by his colleagues in Europe? Is he satisfied with the result so far of the transfer of sovereign powers from this House to the institutions of the Community and to a directly elected Assembly?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we sincerely hope that we can resolve this matter during the budgetary process, which must first be allowed to complete its course. I should hate to have to have recourse to withholding—this deals with the right hon. Gentleman's question about sovereignty—our contribution until the full budgetary process had run its course. It is as if the Government have lost a point in Committee, but the Report stage remains to put the matter right.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that neither he nor the Government will allow any increase in the resources available to the European Community unless the deficits incurred by the common agricultural policy are substantially reduced?

Mr. Ridley: The strict financial guideline which my right hon. and learned Friend put forward requests that the rate of increase in agricultural spending be limited to a proportion only of the rate of increase in Community own resources. If that were agreed, there would be a limit on agricultural spending.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: First, will the Minister withdraw his remark that he would hate to have to have recourse to withholding our contribution, as it is a threat to act in breach of Community law? Secondly, will he accept that the Government's insistence on maintaining a rigid ceiling on total expenditure at the level that he has mentioned will be damaging to this country and to the Community in three respects? First, putting a ceiling on agricultural guarantee expenditure of the kind that he has mentioned would result in direct harm to the British farmer. Secondly, it would leave no resources for expansion of expenditure by the Community on unemployment measures and social spending. Thirdly, it would result in continuing the reluctance of our Community partners to accept any automatic refund to this country.

Mr. Ridley: To say that one would hate to do something cannot be interpreted as a threat, and I stand by what I said. The conditions under which the Government are prepared to consider—that is not a strong word—any increase in own resources are, first, that a strict and binding financial guideline be placed upon the growth of agricultural expenditure and, secondly, that some financial mechanism be in place to ensure that no Community

member state bears an unfair burden of the costs of Community policies. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman, and the House, would think that that was the correct way to proceed.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, infuriating as is the loss of part of the refund for last year, and satisfactory as is the settlement for this year, it is far more important to secure a long-term sensible arrangement for financing the Community? Will he concentrate on that and invite hon. Members to concentrate on it also?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Already, two meetings of the special Council have taken place. The atmosphere was constructive and some progress was made. We hope to achieve an effective result by the time of the Athens Council meeting in December. My only sadness is that the events of last week do not give Her Majesty's Government as much confidence that those negotiations will come to a satisfactory conclusion as they would have had without any cuts in the refund.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: If, to use the Financial Secretary's words, the Council has made an arbitrary cut in the 1982 repayments during the 1983 budget negotiations, what is to prevent it doing exactly the same with the 1983 repayments in respect of the 1984 budget?

Mr. Ridley: The cut in the 1983 budget was in respect of the risk-sharing for 1982, an amount calculated under a complicated mathematical formula, depending upon the outcome of our net contribution and known as the "risk-sharing element". This might have been positive or negative. In fact, it was an increased refund due to us. The rebate for 1983, included in the 1984 budget, was a fixed sum—750 million ecu net—and that amount, properly grossed up and properly calculated, has been included in the 1984 budget. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Council has passed the money required to fulfil that obligation arising out of Stuttgart.

Sir Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, far from being a sad and sorry performance, as described by the Opposition, his performance held high hopes for a satisfactory outcome? I hope he understands that he is to be congratulated on the difficult negotiations, in which he took part over a long period of time. I hope he will agree that a set-back is one thing but that the determination to succeed remains—quite unlike the illusory changes made by the Opposition at the time of the referendum. The genuine benefits that we should receive in the end are still attainable and must be attained.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He might feel that some evidence of how hard we struggled to prevail in the Council for what was right can be derived from the fact that the Council lasted for two and a half days, including an all-night session of no fewer than 30 hours. I gather that that is a Community record, soon I hope, to find its way into the "Guinness Book of Records".

Mr. John Evans: Why is it that every time the Prime Minister returns from the Community finance bill second reading in the Council of Ministers she returns with cries of triumph and rejoicing, while every time the right hon. Gentleman and his junior colleagues return from trying to pick up


the pieces in committee they return whipped and have to admit that their European colleagues have defeated them once again?

Mr. Ridley: I suggest that that is a question that the hon. Gentleman should ask the other budget Ministers of our Community partners at the Council. It is they who went back on the 26 October 1982 agreement, not I.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the House were so unwise as to pass legislation raising the VAT ceiling the necessary pressure upon the EC to reform its budgetary arrangements and, most of all, the CAP, would be lost?

Mr. Ridley: I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that. He will notice that no such proposal was included in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was the Minister misquoted by the press as saying that he would "go to war" over this? If not, what is the nature of the task force that he has in mind?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is not living up to his usual standard. He did not mention the General Belgrano in that question. I said that we had lost a battle but had not lost the war. I repeat that.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the Government's policy is to reduce public spending at home it would be equally logical to reduce it at Brussels? In view of the shabby treatment that Great Britain has received this week, will the Government reconsider their position and make it clear that under no circumstances will they allow an increase in the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling?

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the desirability of containing and reducing public expenditure, whether at home or in Brussels. I can give him some reassurance, because the 1983 supplementary budget is right up against the ceiling and cannot be increased. The margin in the 1984 budget is so small as virtually to amount to the same thing. At present we have an effective lid on Community spending.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is not this statement the latest in a long series of failures over the years by the Government on this issue, and does it not reveal that the CAP presents an insuperable difficulty which the Government cannot get over in its present form? Does it not also reveal that the change from buying food cheap from the British Commonwealth to going into the Common Market was nonsense?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is now essential, after the latest large percentage rises in Community agricultural spending, that either a ceiling be put on that spending or some other means is devised to control spending or, if possible, to bring it down. For the last two years Community agricultural spending fell below estimates, because of high world prices, which reduced the amounts that had to be paid. The problem has only now become acute. The Government welcome the fact that financial circumstances mean that a solution must now be found.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, during the discussions the Greek Government refused to finalise the budget because they wanted some of the money allocated to the United

Kingdom for the restructure of our fishing fleet? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when he returns to the Council, under no circumstances will he permit that Government to have any part of the money already allocated by the Council of Ministers for the restructure of the British fleet?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot remember such an event during the long hours of that night, but, in any case, the budget has been adopted in the form in which it now is and it is not possible for the Council to go back to it until it has been considered by the European Parliament. I do not accept my hon. Friend's allegations.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Does not talking tough but acting weakly give us the worst of all worlds? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as an earnest of his intentions in the important battles to come, make it clear that we shall withhold the payments until we get a more satisfactory outcome?

Mr. Ridley: I should have thought that the maxim with which the hon. Gentleman opened his question could be turned backwards for his party. I am delighted to hear that, after all this tough talk, the two front runners for the leadership of the Labour party have changed their minds. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said:
The Common Market position is bound to be revised. Events move around us",
and they certainly do. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said today:
Conversion to the acceptance of the European Community is belated but welcome.
I can say that again.

Mr. Straw: Does the Financial Secretary accept that, for all the so-called repayments that the Government have received, average annual contributions in constant prices are running at £100 million a year more under this Government than they were under the previous Government? As to withholding contributions, does the Financial Secretary agree that the advice given by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), as the alliance representative, to grovel sycophantically before the EC is poor advice and that withholding contributions is a necessary weapon which we may have to use? The Government would have the full support of the Opposition if they were to use it.
As we are, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, up against the budget limits and the forecast is that the money for the EC will run out by October, why is the right hon. Gentleman refusing to give a commitment which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been demanding from him—a clear and categoric undertaking that the Government will block any increase in the VAT ceiling? Is he aware that his refusal, and that of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, to give that clear and categoric undertaking to veto any increase in the VAT contribution shows other Common Market Governments that we lack the will to fight this one through?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman can see the figures for the contribution records of both Governments, but when making calculations he must not forget to allow for inflation. As to withholding contributions, I, and the Government as a whole, hope that it will not come to that. We shall pursue this setback by trying to put it right in the context of the budgetary procedures.
The Community may or may not run out of money in October. The supplementary budget was to provide money for the rest of the year, and that money has been made available by the Government, although the money has to go through the European Parliament. Whether or not that is sufficient money to last the CAP for this year, and whether or not the 1984 budget contains sufficient money for the agricultural policy to pay its way next year, there is no conceivable way in which those resources could be increased either during 1983 or 1984. All member states would have to ratify an increase in the 1 per cent. ceiling through their national Parliaments and, apart from the merits of the case, there is no way in which that could be done before the end of 1984.

Energy Assets (Sale)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having listened attentively to exchanges earlier today, it appears that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to read the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) 15 minutes ago. My hon. Friend's question, as on the Order Paper, reads as follows:
To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proposals he has for achieving the expanded programme of asset sales in 1983–84 which he announced on 7 July, Official Report, column 418.
My answer reads as follows:
I expect to raise up to £500 million of the asset sales which I am seeking before the end of the 1983–84 financial year from an offer for sale of a further tranche of BP shares.
Parliamentary approval for expenditure in connection with such a sale of BP shares will be sought in a new Vote which will be introduced in a Supplementary Estimate. Pending that approval, any necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund'.

Mr. John Smith: The House will have noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the convenience of the House but failed to talk about courtesy to the House. Would it not have been better for him to have made an oral statement, without his having to be dragged to the Dispatch Box after a parliamentary row to give information that Parliament is entitled to receive?
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to embark on any more sales of public assets without honestly declaring them to the House so that he can be questioned about the principle of the sales and the technique to be adopted? When is the Supplementary Estimate to be introduced? Is it to be before or after the recess?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the forced sales of the Wytch farm oilfield and British Gas Corporation assets in the North sea will not be proceeded with until there has been a proper debate in the House about the sales? Bearing in mind his lamentable record in the sale of shares in Amersham International and Britoil, what technique will the Chancellor adopt for the sale of the BP shares to avoid some of the disasters for which he was previously responsible?
What justification is there for a national policy that insists that, whenever a public enterprise makes a profit, it has to be sold and the losses have to be borne by the taxpayer?

Mr. Lawson: The only matter raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that is germane to the exchanges that occurred earlier is that of courtesy to the House, and of that I am sensible.
I can inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the precedents in these matters, because there have been a number of previous sales of BP shares. This is not the first by any means, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who was a member of the Government who indulged in such sales, is well aware.
In an oral statement on 7 July I announced that the programme of asset sales during the current year would increase by a further £500 million, and the further details have been filled in by this written answer.
The previous sale of BP shares was in 1981 when the Government and the Bank of England sold the rights that they had as a result of the rights issue. That realised a substantial sum. That was announced to the House in a written answer on 18 June and was accepted by the House.
In 1979 my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that there would be a programme of asset sales, and he merely mentioned that BP would be an element in that programme. Nothing was said about the timing. In fact, in early October 1979 the details of the offer were announced in a press notice because the House was not sitting.
The sale previous to that was made by the Labour Government. On that occasion, the then Chancellor made a statement to the House in connection with an agreement with the International Monetary Fund—that does not apply in this case— referring to the intention to sell some BP shares. No details whatever were given. The operation occurred in June 1977. Again, there was an offer for sale and there was a written answer on that day.

Mr. Gary Waller: I thank my right hon. Friend for the written reply, which I have now also received orally. It was an extremely good one. In view of what he has just said and as what the Government are now doing is clearly no grand precedent but merely a repetition of what the Labour Government did, was not what we saw today during energy questions and subsequently one hell of a wild goose chase?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is quite right.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Chancellor aware that the 1981 operation was not a precedent and that the real precedents were in 1979 and 1977? On both those occasions, the Chancellor announced to the House an intention specifically to sell BP shares. That did not take place on this occasion. That is why the House objected. Quite apart from the wisdom of the Government's selling or proposing to sell about £6 billion in assets since they have been in office and the system of stampede financing that that exemplifies, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the specific promise made by the then Chancellor on 31 October 1979? Elaborating on the terms of the sale, the then Chancellor said:
The prospectus will record that the Government do not intend to sell any more of their present holding in the company,


nor is there any intention to sell, other than to the Government, any of the shares in the company representing the holding acquired by the Bank of England from the Burmah Oil Company Limited and one of its subsidiaries, for the forseeable future."—[Official Report, 31 October 1979; Vol. 972. c. 523–24.]
What does the right hon. Gentleman say to the further assurance given by the then Chancellor on 12 March 1980? When asked for reaffirmation of the undertaking given in the previous year's prospectus about the Government's intention regarding further sales, the then Chancellor said:
I can reaffirm that there is no intention in the foreseeable future of selling any more of the Government's shareholding". —[Official Report, 12 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1420–21.]
If the foreseeable future is from March 1980 until now, the right hon. Gentleman has some explaining to do. Has the financial situation so deteriorated since the election that the Government have to go back on the prospectus and the commitment that they made in it?

Mr. Lawson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I have said is fully consistent with the undertakings given in the prospectus and elsewhere. If he doubts my word, he can consult any reputable lawyer or legal expert in these matters.
As for the foreseeable future, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could have foreseen in 1979 or 1980 that today he would be a member not of the Labour party but of a totally different party.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend spell out why a Supplementary Estimate will be needed and confirm that it will not be presented until the autumn?

Mr. Lawson: There is no need for any Supplementary Estimate this side of the recess.

Mr. John Evans: I now unreservedly accept that the Secretary of State for Energy answered my question absolutely correctly, if somewhat tersely, and I withdraw any criticism of him. In future, however, before the Chancellor gets friendly Back Benchers to table planted questions, will he check the Order Paper to ensure that he will not embarrass any of his Cabinet colleagues? Will he also tell the House whether the suggested sale of Britoil has been circumvented in the Cabinet by the new Secretary of State for Energy persuading his colleagues that such a move would be folly in the extreme?

Mr. Lawson: Sales of Britoil shares, like sales of BP shares, are not matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In both cases, the shares are held by the Treasury and are the responsibility of the Chancellor. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the announcement refers specifically to sales of BP shares. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy having given a perfectly correct answer. I might add that my right hon. Friend was not embarrassed in the slightest.

Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no strategic reason for hanging on to BP shares? If so, why did not the Government get rid of them long ago?

Mr. Lawson: The Government are selling shares where there is no national interest reason for the Government's holding them. They are sold as and when market conditions appear appropriate and in quantities which appear appropriate.

Hon. Members: Like Amersham International.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Chancellor recall that in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for Energy he had plenty to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), myself and others in the Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill about how important it was to get right the timing on sales of shares. If the timing does not look favourable and the omens are not good, will the sale still go ahead?

Mr. Lawson: That is a hypothetical question. As the hon. Gentleman referred to his earlier remarks about the sale of Britoil shares, he may be interested to know that the current price of those shares is within 3p or about 1·5 per cent. of the issue price.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the decision to raise money through the sale of BP shares in no way excludes decisions by himself or other Ministers to raise money from the sale of other majority or minority stakes held by the Government?

Mr. Lawson: The Government have all these matters under constant review. I repeat that my answer today referred specifically to BP shares. I recommend my hon. Friend to read it when he has the chance.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is spurious to argue that Governments need to own great national assets for the people because taxation and legislation allow them a certain amount of control and substantial revenue in any case? Is it not better to sell the assets and ensure that the Government do not have to cut expenditure to such an extent that public services are damaged or, worse still, increase income tax which damages companies? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is sound policy to sell what is sensible to raise capital so that the long-term strategy is not damaged?

Mr. Lawson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In the circumstances prevailing when I came to the House on 7 July, given that the public sector borrowing requirement was in danger of overrunning — indeed, all the signs were that it was overrunning—it made very good sense to reduce the PSBR at least to the tune of £500 million by a sale of assets — notably the assets that I have mentioned today.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: At the risk of drifting into industrial matters, about which my right hon. Friend knows at least as much as I do, will he arrange to provide written answers to questions on nationalised industries that lose more than £500 million a year to see whether the Opposition take as much interest in that as they have in this asset sale?

Mr. Lawson: That is an interesting point, but I doubt whether such written answers are matters for me.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor now agree that, in view of some of the information that has been revealed by questions, it was well worth his time coming to the House to answer them? However, will he now answer some of the questions that he has not so far answered?
Will the Government not proceed with any more sales in the energy sector—Wytch Farm and BGC interests in the North sea — until we have had a parliamentary debate? The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a


question from the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about no Vote being sought until after the recess. Why, then, is it necessary to say in the written answer:
Pending that approval, any necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund"?
What expenditure will be entered into before the House returns from the recess? What will be the cost of the sale and, given the eliptical nature of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, what will the Government do before we have a chance to return to the subject?

Mr. Lawson: I cannot at present say what the cost of the offer for sale will be, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be well aware that costs are associated with any offer for sale, as they were with the Labour Government's offer for sale of BP shares in 1977.
Wytch Farm and BGC oil assets stray outside what we are talking about, but these matters have been debated ad nauseam on many occasions.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three Questions on the motions relating to the draft statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Sixth General Increase) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 24th October and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be reasonable to conclude from a number of indications that have appeared in the press that, before the House resumes in the latter part of October, a number of ministerial meetings will have taken place between members of the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Irish Republic and that even if those meetings do not include a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Irish Premier, arrangements of a less than tentative character for such a meeting subsequently may have been made and announced. The consequence of such events is so serious that it is desirable to bring it to the attention of the Government before the House adjourns for the recess in order that the reasons should be made clear.
The purported background to meetings of this kind has always been the desirability of friendly relations being established and maintained between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. Upon the face of it, that appears an intention with which there can be no possible cavil or quarrel. The difficulty is that the same expressions and aspirations sometimes mean different things to different people. Friendship or good relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom are dependent, and always have been made clear by that country to be dependent, upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, namely on visible progress being made towards the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and its embodiment in some kind of political arrangement that could colourably be represented as an all-Ireland state. From the point of view of the politics and the Government of the Irish Republic, that alone is the basis for any improvement of relations between that country and this.
When this matter is spoken of, there frequently occurs an expression — it sometimes falls from the lips of Ministers in this House—"political progress in Northern Ireland". I have never been quite clear of the connotation attached to that phrase in the minds of hon. Members in this House, imagining as I do that hon. Members regard our admirable constitution in church and state as something upon which little, if any, further improvement can be, or needs to be, made.
However, the term "political progress in Northern Ireland" is a term of art or code word well understood by those who deal with the relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. Translated, it means the establishment of arrangements in Northern Ireland that will facilitate or lead to the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and its entry into political arrangements that could colourably be represented as an all-Ireland state, federal or otherwise.
So when the term "political progress" is used in communiqués or falls from the lips of Secretariés of State for Northern Ireland, whatever hon. Members might suppose it means — if they give the matter a second thought—it means something quite specific in the ears


of those to whom it is addressed in the politics of the Irish Republic. It means arrangements designed to lead to the long term political end of establishing an all-Ireland state.
I apologise for that preliminary disquisition before coming to the consequences of conferences, at Cabinet Minister or higher level, between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, professedly designed to improve relations and promote a friendly relationship between this country and the Irish Republic. The significance of those professions to those whom it most concerns is quite unambiguous. It is that Her Majesty's Government intend to renew the attempt to make new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland which will be regarded by the Government of the Irish Republic as likely to lead towards the accomplishment of their purpose. On their lips, that is what is meant by "political progress", and that is what they understand to be meant by seeking friendly or improved relations with the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Winnick: One recognises that the majority wish in the Six Counties is to retain the Union, hence the reason for six and not nine counties in traditional Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged views on that before. What will be the position of the substantial minority in the Six Counties—which I am sure, like the majority, deplores terrorism—which never has and never will accept the permanent partition of its country and which has always believed that Ireland should be one? How does the right hon. Gentleman believe that should be dealt with?

Mr. Powell: Their position will be the same as that of those who vote for the Scottish National party, who have never accepted that Scotland ought to be part of the United Kingdom and who vote for a party whose policy is to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman can confirm that with those members of the Scottish National party who sit in this House.

Mr. Winnick: That is not a valid argument.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but I am giving him the answer for which he asked.
If he should be under the delusion that religion enters into the matter, I must tell him that those of the Roman Catholic religion in Northern Ireland will be in exactly the same position, have the same rights, conditions and treatment, as those of the Roman Catholic religion in the remainder of the United Kingdom. As for the little matter that has occasionally been discussed between us, I remind him of my observation that it is unnecessary to stick quite so pedantically to the administrative organisation of the island of Ireland by that distinguished Tudor monarch, Henry VIII. Even I, as a Welshman and a Conservative, do not think that it is necessary in all circumstances to adhere slavishly to the administrative divisions instituted by Henry Tudor.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Powell: I am in a difficult position. As there is now a limitation on the length of these debates I am anxious to restrict my remarks. However, I give way to the hon. Gentleman briefly.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall be brief. Should not the right hon. Gentleman say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that it is strange that he

should wish to include three more counties in Northern Ireland, thus including more nationalists in a state to which they do not wish to belong?

Mr. Winnick: That proves my point.

Mr. Powell: The protestations of the hon. Member who represents a black country constituency that I do not recollect, are further confirmation of his slavish acceptance, as valid for all time, of the administrative divisions imposed upon the island of Ireland by the Tudor monarchy.
I am anxious to return to the point that I desire to bring to the attention of Ministers. It is a matter for speculation how far they ever understand the meaning of these expressions in the minds of the other party to their conferences. What is certain is that even if the Ministers do not understand the end to which the conferences and discussions are intended to lead, it is well understood not only by the Government of the Irish Republic but by those other forces which, by other methods, desire to secure the transfer of a province of the United Kingdom to a state and to a political connection into which the majority of its inhabitants have no intention of entering.
That is what constitutes the urgency and importance of bringing this matter before the House on this occasion. If the impression is given, sustained and repeated, during the months that the House will not be sitting that the Government, knowingly or unknowingly, are contributing to make arrangements for the cession of Ulster into an all-Ireland State, that cannot but be a substantial encouragement to those whose object it is to further that end by violent means.
I fear it must be taken as certain that before the House resumes, a number of men and women now alive in Northern Ireland will have lost their lives by terrorist action. It does not lie, alas, at this moment within the power of the Government to reduce that tragic number to zero. What does lie within their power is to limit that number for the immediate future and to secure over the months and years to come that it falls towards zero. That they can do only by destroying the conception, or misconception — whichever it may be — that they are willing to enter into arrangements in Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Irish Republic of which the object is the same as that of those who by terror seek to impose their will upon Northern Ireland and whom others, by unlawful means, seek to resist. This is, therefore, for individuals whom we do not know, alive today in Northern Ireland, a matter of life or death.
The Leader of the House is entitled to put a question and a challenge to me. He is entitled to ask, "If that is the meaning, and is bound to be taken to be the meaning, of the well-meant attempt of the Government to maintain and improve good relations between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, what then is the right hon. Gentleman advocating? Presumably good relations with foreign powers are in the interests of any country and are the desire of any hon. Member of the House."
If the right hon. Gentleman should put that question to me, I would have to say that for the present it is necessary in the interests of all concerned, and it would be fair and honourable towards the Irish Republic as well as towards those for whom the House is responsible, that the course of action followed during the past four years—to go no further back—should be discontinued until it is plainly


seen and understood by the Irish Republic that it is neither in the power nor in the intention of Her Majesty's Government to promote the aim which the Irish Republic has sought to attach as a condition to good relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom. The sooner that is understood—the sooner that is made clear in actions and not in words—the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland and for the people of the remainder of the island of Ireland. [Interruption.] That is the plea which, despite the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) I take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of Ministers this afternoon.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This is one of the few debates in which hon. Members may say why the House should not adjourn before certain matters have been discussed. We are relieved of the opportunity or obligation to comment on the speeches of hon. Members who have preceded us. So I shall say no more than that I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—an Irish constituency—that the matter that he raised should be commented on by Ministers before the House rises.
I wish to raise three points, two of which are major and one minor. The House should not adjourn before the summer recess until we have heard something from Ministers about their attitude to a new, shady and squalid organisation called the Association of London Authorities. That body is being set up at the expense of London ratepayers to change the rules of the game. That is not unusual as the Labour party frequently changes the rules of the game as it goes along. The Liberal party and the SDP are trying to get in on the same act with electoral reform.
I remind the House that for a substantial number of years—more than I care to remember in certain cases—both the Association of Municipal Corporations and the old metropolitan boroughs standing joint committee were dominated by the Labour party. Yet those councils that were under Conservative control accepted that those two bodies existed, did not squeal and did not try to set up a counter organisation. There is much in local government that still needs to be done that is way beyond pure party politics. I hope that Ministers will understand that and not bow to some of the strange noises coming out of the proposed headquarters of that organisation at the little Kremlin opposite this building on the other side of Westminster bridge.
Ministers will be asked to treat the Association of London Authorities as a proper body that should have consultation rights. I want to urge Ministers not to fall into that trap. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a robust response to an oral question that I put to her recently which I hope has been communicated to her ministerial colleagues. I have reason to believe that all of them have not yet had that drawn to their attention by their civil servants, and that should happen.
We know that Ministers are considering this matter because on 21 July my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
My right hon. Friend is considering the association's request for recognition and such a status."—[Official Report 21 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 232.]

It should not require much time to give the sort of answer that that request demands.
I hope that Ministers will say before the recess that they will completely disregard the Association of London Authorities for all purposes and not recognise it as anything other than a front organisation of the Labour party. I hope that Ministers will continue, as all Ministers have done up to now, to consult genuine bodies such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. Ratepayers will then be protected. If my right hon. and hon. Friends give the right answer and say that they will not consult that body because they do not recognise it as legitimate for consultation purposes, ratepayers will have the opportunity to go to the district auditor and demand that those authorities that are wasting ratepayers' money on financing it should be surcharged.
The second subject that needs to be considered by Ministers before the House rises is that of rate capping. We have heard that there is a document in preparation and that we are to receive a White Paper at an early date on that subject. Domestic and commercial ratepayers alike need protection that they have not had previously. Legislation passed in the previous Parliament would, we thought, protect ratepayers by ensuring that those authorities that spent over a predetermined rate would have their rate support grant reduced. We thought that that would make authorities act as they had always acted in the past when Governments of any colour had asked for restraint in expenditure. Alas, it did not happen. Instead, authorities such as ILEA, Camden, Islington and many others merely passed that extra bill on to their ratepayers. Those ratepayers require help. It is precisely because those authorities are being run by councillors who treat ratepayers with complete contempt that Ministers must act quickly to stop such action.
I received today one of the many press releases from over the water at county hall headed
Rates Dictatorship Will Devastate Community Services
That document was meant to reach here on Thursday last week in time for the debate on the Scottish rating orders which, rightly, stopped spendthrift authorities in Scotland wasting their ratepayers' money. That document said:
The practical effects will be just as disastrous. No service will be safe from the Whitehall axe. Education, social services, housing, transport, recreation will all be hit.
None of those services need be hit if authorities such as the GLC stop wasting our money on, for example, police matters for which they have no statutory authority, women's committees for which they have no statutory need, nuclear officers for nuclear-free zones, and racialism committees for which they have no statutory need because there are superb organisations in most boroughs that are coping magnificently with the problems of community relations. We do not want a set of interfering busybodies over the road running such committees. The only reason that many do it is to claim additional attendance allowances because many of them have never worked in their lives and never intend to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] That is exactly what I have said. It is completely disgraceful that local councils should set themselves up as makeshift parliaments, which is what they believe they are.
That is why it is necessary for Ministers to give the House the opportunity of knowing as quickly as possible what they propose to do about rate capping. I also hope


that they will let us know what they propose to do to limit the powers of those authorities which spend up to a 2p rate in the interests of their ratepayers. Those authorities have no genuine interest in their ratepayers; they are interested only in their own political philosophies.
Those are two particularly important matters on which the House needs information before it rises for the summer recess. The third and final issue is a House of Commons matter. It is incredible that in the year 1983 we are at the mercy of some strange new impossible telephone answering system against which Members, their secretaries and constituents are battling. It is no good people telling me that it will be reviewed and that it will take a few months to settle down. We have just had a technology year and the sort of technology that we have here is impossible. Nothing I say on this subject is a reflection upon the dedicated and hard-working staff who help us in the House, but the first job of the Services Committee, which has been set up, is to meet before the recess to consider what can be done to make the telephone sytem in the House workable.
Last week my wife had an urgent call for me from a constituent. She thought she knew the system well but she made seven telephone calls before she got through to me. First she got through to an answering machine which was half way through its message. She was then told that my secretary was at the photocopying machine and that she should ring the attendant and so on. My secretary, and other secretaries in the room that she shares, have had the same experience. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, if he cannot give me a full answer to my first two major points, at least, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to say that he has called it together before the recess and that it will take evidence not merely from officials but also from our secretaries, most of whom have to bear the brunt of this latest monster that has been created for us. For those reasons it is necessary for the House to have information on those subjects before its Members and Officers go for a well-deserved recess.

Mr. Frank Cook: Like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) I rise to ask the Government to withdraw the motion for the adjournment of the House. My constituency of Stockton, North lies in the county of Cleveland which is afflicted by the highest unemployment rate of any county area in mainland Britain. It stood at over 23 per cent. at the time of the last statistical publication. In some areas of Cleveland adult male unemployment exceeds 60 per cent.
In my constituency there were more than 10,000 claimants at the last count. Heaven knows how many that would have been if the "Department of massage parlours" had not got to work on the figures with its mystical, manipulative techniques. That 10,000-plus represents an unemployment rate of about 20 per cent. For that 10,000 there are fewer than 150 recognised vacancies. Does that mean that 70 workers are chasing each vacancy? Not a bit of it. It means that 10,000 workers are chasing every vacancy. There is the difference. It is a difference that is very real to the unemployed element of the electorate.
Furthermore, of that 10,000-plus unemployed, 2,555 —more than 25 per cent.—are young people registered as unemployed. What are their prospects of procuring work? The number of vacancies notified can be counted on the fingers of two hands—the fingers, forget the

thumbs. The notified vacancies total a mere eight. That is before the termination of an academic year inevitably swells the youth sector's total even further.
The true dimension of this pathetic situation cannot be better described than by a former doyen of this House when he said:
One of the most harrowing features connected with the problem of the unemployed is not the poverty or the hardship they have to endure, but the fearful moral degradation that follows in the train of enforced idleness, and there is no more pitiable spectacle in this world than the man willing to work, who, day after day, vainly 'begs a brother of the earth, to give him leave to toil.
The same person, using as his base figures issued by the Government of the day, stated in the same address:
Well, if that statement be true, it means that 4 million of the inhabitants of these islands are without visible means of subsistence, not because of any fault on their part, but because our present land and industrial system denies them the opportunity of working for a living.
That speech referred to 4 million unemployed. That is a terrifying parallel to today's situation, save that the figures then were not massaged. When was that dreadful day? Who made such statements? The person was Keir Hardie, and the date 7 February 1893; and we have not turned back the clock.
It is little wonder that the Prime Minister chose to avoid the north-east in her recent campaign itinerary—a wise decision, if not a courageous one. Such a visit may have provoked the resurrection of generations of souls who willingly gave hearts and minds to changing such a pitiless society and strove to bequeath a better future to the young. The House must remember that the silence of the spirit scorned inevitably breeds the anger that is so hard to quench.
We are constantly reminded of the need for harder work, for greater efficiency, for higher productivity and for more effort. Yet we are asked today seriously to consider a 12 weeks recess when circumstances similar to those in Cleveland prevail throughout the country. A body that had the resilience, fortitude, dedication and commitment to society that it sat all night, till five of the morning's clock, simply to consider the level of its Members' salaries, is now asked by the Government to turn its back for three calendar months on the plight of more than 4 million of the nation's unemployed. Such a request is un-Christian; it is callous; it is heartless, but I am sad to say, it is to be expected.
I must ask respectfully that the House thinks again and reconsiders the motion in the light of the nation's circumstance. The House could do no better, when deliberating today, than to heed the words of Keir Hardie's amendment, on the same occasion, when he expressed regret that no reference had been made
to the industrial depression now prevailing, and the widespread misery, due to large numbers of the working class being unable to find employment, and direct Parliament to legislate promptly and effectively in the interests of the unemployed"—
before the recess.

Sir Paul Hawkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on his maiden speech and the confident way in which he made it. He was far more confident than I was when I first stood up in the House 18 years ago. I hope that he will enjoy the company of fellow Members and enjoy being in the House as much as I have in the last 18 years.
I feel strongly that we should not rise for the long recess without promises of action on several matters. I admit that I look forward to the long recess, but it is not a holiday, and our constituents do not think that it is. We take up many matters which we do not have time to attend to when the House is sitting. We spend much of the recess visiting our constituents and parts of our constituencies.
I have three reasons why we should have promises of action before we resume in the autumn. If we are honest, we will admit that we won the election so overwhelmingly—and we did, despite what some try to say—because the Labour party was out of touch with the average voter. I am determined that this Government will not be out of touch when we go to the electorate next time.
Already, the House of Commons has denied the electorate the weapon of capital punishment that it wanted in the fight against violent crime. I ask for definite assurances about other deterrents against violent crime. I do not like the thought of prisoners serving 15 to 20 years' imprisonment. When a person has been behind barbed wire for five years he begins to think that that is a much as any human being can stand, but if the public are to be protected it must be done. Few hon. Members who spoke against capital punishment could think of another deterrent.
I ask my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, not only to reconsider deterrents, but to consider setting up Army-style camps for violent criminals. They must be less expensive. I cannot understand why it is said that they would be more expensive. They could provide more freedom of movement for the people inside. I see no reason why such camps should be luxurious. They could be spartan. Armed guards could be placed outside. Violent people who attack children, women and other people must be treated as though, if they broke out, they would commit violent crimes again. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to assure me that the whole organisation of the police force and the calibre of recruits is good enough to tackle the modern criminal. Will he promise me that, before we resume, this can be considered as a matter of urgency?
I should like reassurance on two other matters before we leave. They are matters of great importance to constituents, as I think we all learnt when we went canvassing a few weeks ago. First, on unemployment, it was mothers and grandmothers who could not accept—nor can I—that their children and grandchildren should regard unemployment as a way of life. I welcome the Government's moves and their latest plans for youth training, which come into effect this autumn, as well as the many other schemes that the Goverment have enacted which, I believe, will bear fruit. But more imaginative plans are needed. I want to be assured, before the recess, that the Government accept that people should not draw the dole all their lives. Despite the real difficulties of mechanisation, microchips, robots and the world depression, which I understand, I want to be assured that they accept that people should not go without work for large slices of their lives and that the Government are working all out to create employment.
Finally, everywhere I went, my constituents, including a great many former Labour voters, were certain that the Government's ideas on defence were right and that the Opposition's ideas were complete nonsense. But the

Government must make it clear to the public, beyond any possible doubt, that they are determined not only to defend the country, but to strive just as hard for peace.
I was greatly encouraged by the tone of the speech in the House last week of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He had new ideas and a fresh approach, but the speech received little publicity. I want to be told, before we resume in the autumn, that the Government recognise the importance of new approaches to the eastern bloc while keeping our defences strong and that they will ensure that the electorate fully understands what we are trying to do.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the first to intervene in the debate from the Opposition Benches since my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) spoke, I most warmly congratulate him on a notable maiden speech. It was a moving and powerful speech, both persuasive and sincere. I hope that we shall hear from him very frequently in the future and that he will always speak as felicitously as he has done today. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, entirely endorse the single point that I want briefly to make in the debate.
Over and over again in recent weeks, I have been approached about the very cruel way in which the new youth training scheme discriminates against disabled young people. The issue is deeply important in human terms and I am extremely concerned that the House should not adjourn for the summer recess before we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment that will meet the strong and justified criticisms of the scheme from disabled youngsters, from their parents and from the organisations that exist to help them.
Sir Terence Beckett, the director general of the CBI, painted in The Times of 5 July a glowing picture of the YTS. The view taken of the scheme by disabled young people and their parents is not so approving.
From school to scrapheap for most disabled youngsters,
is how one mother described the scheme to me. Nor is she alone in so strongly condemning the YTS for the way in which it discriminates against disabled young people.
Let me give an example. The case of a disabled 19-year-old, Judy, was brought to my attention by the National Bureau for Handicapped Students. Judy had special learning difficulties that she worked incredibly hard to overcome. On the day that a specialist careers officer was seeing Judy and her parents to discuss vocational training for her under the youth opportunities programme, the replacement of that scheme by YTS was announced by the Government.
Under the YOP, the maximum age of entry was 24. The maximum age at which disabled young people can enter the YTS is 18. Judy's career officer was "devastated" to have to tell her that the plans he had been making for her vocational training had now been scuttled. At 19, she as too old for the new scheme.
The age barrier is but one of many reasons for mounting criticism of the YTS from the organisations that speak for disabled people. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students, whose work rightly enjoys the respect of both sides of the House, protests that the special needs of disabled young people have been largely ignored. The scheme is attacked, among other reasons, for being inflexible and inadequately financed.
Young people such as Judy are additionally handicapped by interrupted schooling and often need an


extended period of education to compete on equal terms with other young people of the same abilities. They may also require more vocational training than other youngsters if they are to take full advantage of any employment opportunities open to them. There is thus justifiably very strong criticism of the Secretary of State's rejection of the Youth Training Board's recommendation to allow disabled youngsters to join the YTS up to the age of 21 and to remain on the scheme for up to two years.
The Minister's decision, clearly based solely on cost, is seen as a cut in the facilities available under the YOP that injures the most vulnerable young people in Britain. For many of them, the cut will probably mean a lifetime's dependence on supplementary benefit in place of the dignity they crave of becoming tax payers. It is an "economy" that is as self-defeating as it is inhumane and one for which the Secretary of State for Employment should be made to attempt some justification before we rise for the summer recess.
If anyone thinks that the Minister's critics exaggerate, let them reflect on the shocking statistics of unemployment among the disabled. Incredible as it may seem, unemployment is twice as high for them as for people generally and, in parts of Britain, the rate among disabled people registered for work now exceeds 80 per cent. With four out of five of their elders on the dole, the Minister can hardly deny that the prospect for disabled young people with no vocational training is extremely bleak.
On 2 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who is now the Chairman of Ways and Means, said:
We are told the youth training scheme is a bridge between school and work, but if the work is not there at the other end of the bridge the bridge itself is turned into a pierhead going nowhere or, worse still, a gangplank into the dole queue." —[Official Report, 2 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 322.]
That was a reference to the problems facing non-disabled young people. How much more sombre and soul-destroying, then, are the prospects of youngsters who, being disabled, are denied by the YTS even the lifebelt of vocational training.
There is deep resentment among their organisations that disabled people were thrust into the argument over the size of the allowance to be paid to YTS trainees. Members of the Youth Training Board were encouraged to keep the allowance at £25 a week partly on the grounds that to do so would free resources that would benefit disabled young people. Yet now that the allowance has been fixed at £25, disabled youngsters are still waiting to benefit. At present, the best they can hope for is 18 months on the YTS.
Money is at the root of other complaints. The national bureau and other organisations would like to see some of the better YOP schemes continue for the benefit of disabled young people. Again, they want much clearer guidance to be given to area managers of the YTS about the special problems and training needs of disabled youngsters. Many crucial decisions are already being taken on the basis of inadequate advice which, together with the wide discretionary powers available to managers, will inevitably lead to regional disparities.
If disabled young people are to participate fully in employer-based training under the YTS, much more must be done to convince employers that they are youngsters with abilities as well as disabilities and with a positive contribution to make to industry and society. Employers are, after all, receiving taxpayers' money and the

Government must make it clear that no managing agents' contracts will be renewed in cases where little effort has been made to recruit disabled youngsters to the scheme.
Sadly for many disabled young people, the steps they have taken to make up for their interrupted schooling now disqualify them from the YTS. The scheme's inflexible criteria—not least its disqualification of young people who have been studying part-time—make many disabled youngsters the victims of their own virtue. That again underlines the need for a ministerial statement before the recess.
Even among disabled youngsters who can meet the scheme's criteria, there are daunting problems. Instead of a planned progression from school to further education, leading to an extended period of vocational training, many will be compelled, by the lack of adequate education grants and provision for their special needs, to participate in the YTS long before they are able fully to benefit from the scheme. Their predicament, like that of Judy and others who are excluded by its rules, merits a full review of all aspects of the scheme as it affects disabled young people. If they are not to be doubly handicapped, and suffer double despair, the need now is urgent.
I hope that the Leader of the House will, therefore, readily agree that there must be a statement from the Secretary of State before the recess. As I said at the outset, the issue is deeply important in human terms. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will win approval on both sides of the House if he responds positively to my plea.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I agreed entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) about the deterioration in the telephone service and particularly the answering service in this House. We live in a technological age. I find it strange that the change which has been introduced is vastly inferior to the system that we had hitherto. Indeed, the answering service is now an inconvenience not only to hon. Members but to our constituents who try to contact us.
It is not many weeks since we were on the doorsteps of our constituents trying to persuade them to vote for us. I cannot help musing that, so soon after that event, Parliament has twice within two weeks shown itself to be completely out of touch with public opinion. On the doorsteps of my constituency there were several recurring themes.
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say what is to happen about postal votes for people on holiday? I found real anger on the part of people who felt that they were being deprived of their democratic right to vote in a general election because of the lack of postal votes for people on holiday. How much longer will we have to wait for Government to grasp this nettle? It is a problem that should have been tackled years ago.
Although in America they know well in advance exactly when their elections will take place — for example, they know that their next presidential election will be on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November 1984—they are still easily able to obtain what they call an absentee ballot. That means that if they go on holiday during the presidential election campaign, or any election campaign, they have the right to vote by post.
People in this country have no idea when a general election will take place. They decide to book a holiday,


sometimes an expensive one, and then find that the general election is to take place while they are away. As a result, they lose their vote. This causes great dissatisfaction, even anger, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will say before the House rises this week when this wrong will be righted.
My main purpose in speaking is to ventilate a complaint which I have made time and again and which I encountered continually while canvassing. It is the vexed question of the reform of the rating system. I have raised this issue often before. I make no apology for raising it again today and I shall go on raising it until something is done to find a fairer system, and if that does not put the fear of God into my right hon. Friend I do not know what will.
My constituency lies in the area administered by Trafford borough council. Trafford council, since its inception, has been Conservative controlled and has always followed a policy of prudent housekeeping. Perhaps it has made cuts which have not always been popular, and we have had to defend those cuts to the people whom we represent, but the council has always prided itself on levying the lowest rate in Greater Manchester — until this year. We had a substantial increase in rates this year because Trafford did badly out of the rate support grant settlement. Because many protests were made we got a refund, but it came nowhere near the amount of grant we lost.
I hope that in next year's rate support grant settlement local authorities such as Trafford, which have conformed to all the expenditure guidelines issued by Secretaries of State for the Environment, will not be penalised in the way they have this year. Apparently—I have referred to this before—there are what are called low multipliers for high-resource authorities. These have been given to London boroughs. The amounts depend on whether the boroughs are in inner or outer London. Therefore, the largely Labour controlled inner London boroughs receive a great deal of help in this way, because the effect of a low multiplier is to reduce an authority's rateable value for the purposes of grant calculation and thus increase its grant entitlement.
I do not quarrel with the idea; it is understandable that some adjustment should be made for authorities with a high rateable value per head, as rateable values are an unreliable indicator of wealth. However, it angers me that this adjustment is confined to London.
When we in Trafford ask to be given similar treatment, we are told that because we stand alone and are not part of any particular grouping we cannot be given a low multiplier. Yet on 1 April 1981 there were 13 London boroughs with rateable values per head equal to or lower than Trafford's. We appear to be deprived of the benefits conferred on London for purely geographical reasons.
I cannot see why low multipliers cannot be used for all authorities above a prescribed rateable value per head. Under the existing system, high resource authorities outside London enjoy no benefit whatever from their rateable values and, in some cases, suffer the penalty of grant reduction, even at very low levels of expenditure. If something could be done along these lines it would be an enormous help to local authorities such as Trafford, which run a tight ship and then get clobbered for doing so.
It is important not to neglect our efforts to find a longterm solution to the rating system. I have always opposed the present system because it is manifestly unfair and takes

no account of a person's ability to pay. We are often confronted with the problem of two similar adjacent houses, one occupied by an elderly widow living on a small fixed income and the other by perhaps four wage earners. The rates bill for each house is identical. I can see nothing fair in such a situation.
Unfortunately, the unfairness does not end there. It is compounded by the water rates, which are based on hypothetical rental values rather than on consumption. Again, the person living alone is unfairly treated. I should be grateful also if somebody would explain why we have a system of rate rebates but no system of water rate rebates, because those rates are also a burden on people with very little money. I mention these issues because they give rise to a great deal of anger among many elderly people who live on their own.
I know all too well that there is no easy solution to rating reform. It is a subject that has been discussed for years, but nothing of value has ever emerged. In October 1974, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the then Conservative Opposition's environment spokesman, she made a pledge in the Conservative party manifesto that a Conservative Government would deal with the rating problem. Unfortunately, the Conservative party did not win that election. By the time we arrived at the May 1979 general election, the pledge had taken a much lower priority. There had been an enormous increase in direct taxation under Labour Governments from 1974 to 1979 and we had to say that top priority would be given to reducing the burden of direct taxation.
It should be clearly understood that the Labour party has never shown all that much sympathy for the ratepayer. It set up the Layfield committee in 1974, which reported in 1976, but the then Labour Government never provided the opportunity in the House for a debate on the report and never took any action on the report.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the findings of the Layfield committee. Does he agree that its findings supported the action taken by the Government whom he criticises?

Mr. Montgomery: Having set up the committee, and having received its report, it would have been an act of courtesy if the then Labour Government had arranged a debate on the issue, during which Members could have expressed their views.
There are basically three options to consider in place of the present rating system. The first is a sales tax, the second is a local income tax and the third is a poll tax. Poll taxes seem to work quite well in the United States, but there would be problems in Britain. The United States has a federal system of government, and in this smaller and crowded island any substantial variation in shopping patterns could be very difficult for traders. A local income tax would be fairer than the present rating system. It would at least take into account a person's ability to pay. However, it seems that the administrative costs of collection could be extremely high.
Having more or less eliminated those two options, we come to the option of a poll tax. I think that a poll tax could be the fairest method to introduce. It would spread the burden evenly on all those on the electoral register and it would be easy and inexpensive to collect.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: People would choose not to go on the electoral register.

Mr. Montgomery: They would then be deprived of the right to vote. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that it is stated in the Green Paper that a £30 poll tax would yield £1,200 million in revenue annually. A combination of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate is perhaps the solution.
There are certain areas which we should study if we are to achieve a reduced domestic rate. Anyone who bothers to read the back of his rate demand will find that education is far and away the greatest area of spending. In going into the subject more deeply, one finds that teachers' salaries represent the greatest proportion of education expenditure. I am sure that teachers do not want to be civil servants and want instead to be employed by their local education authorities. Therefore, it is essential that the authorities bear some financial responsibility.
It might be possible to devise a scheme whereby teachers' basic salaries were paid by central Government and any additional payments were shared between central Government and the local education authority. If that were done, an enormous burden would be lifted from ratepayers. Such a system would, of course, transfer a substantial burden to the taxpayer. This must not be taken as a signal by spendthrift councils that, having had the rate burden substantially eased, they have a green light to go ahead with massive spending schemes. If that were to happen, the poor ratepayer would be back to square one.
It is right to look more to privatisation. A greater use of private enterprise could lead to a substantial saving of ratepayers' money without any reduction in services.
I am aware of all the problems, but my hopes rose when earlier this year it was reported that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had taken over the committee studying possible reform of the rating system. No doubt the advent of the general election scuppered all that. However, we are now assured of another five years of Conservative Government and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider the problem again. I know that she is very much aware of the unfairness of the present rating system. I hope that before the House rises my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to say that the Government have not given up all hope of finding an alternative to the rating system, and thereby offer a ray of hope to the many hard-pressed ratepayers.

Mr. Donald Coleman: In an excellent maiden speech my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) referred to Keir Hardie. I remind my hon. Friend and the House generally that for a long time Keir Hardie represented a Welsh constituency. It is possible that some of the problems in the coal mining industry were problems with which he, too, had to concern himself.
I wish to refer to the industry's problems in south Wales. They are such that they must not be ignored by the House or by the Government. The coal industry in south Wales is in a serious plight and I warn Ministers in the Welsh Office and the Department of Energy to take seriously the words of Mr. Emlyn Williams, the president of the south Wales miners.
The south Wales miners are saying that they are not hell bent on the destruction of the mining industry in south Wales. They are bent on its success and prosperity. They say that the Government should get off their backs and off the back of the National Coal Board and allow the miners

and the coal board to get on with the business of mining coal. Ministers should forget ideology. The coal industry will not be a candidate for the evil of privatisation.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Why not?

Mr. Coleman: Ministers should accept that as a fact and not resist the call for investment, which is at the very heart of the case of the National Union of Mineworkers.
Of course, there are pits in south Wales that are becoming exhausted. No one, least of all the NUM leaders, will deny that. However, there are reserves of coal in south Wales richer than those in any other part of the world. It is sensible, therefore, to pursue developments such as Margam and Glyncastle in the Neath valley. These developments will create wealth for the nation, and that is what the miners of south Wales are calling for. Moves to obstruct pit closures are not taken merely for the sake of obstruction. The NUM leaders know that once a work force in the mining industry is dispersed, it disappears for ever and its expertise is no longer available. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has spoken of the closure of the Brynlliw colliery in his constituency. I, too, could talk of closure. There was the closure of the Blaengwrach colliery in the Neath valley, for example. Instead, I want to talk of investment, and it is that that we wish to hear about from Ministers. If developed, Margam could be a means of maintaining gas supplies when natural gas runs out in 10 years' time. It is adjacent to Llandarcy which used to be in my constituency, but it now forms part of that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). At Llandarcy is a site which is now connected to the national gas grid. Moreover, there is a refinery there where the liquefaction of coal is a possibility. Such developments must take place in about 10 years' time—the time to make a start at Margam is now.
Anthracite is the most valuable coal in the world and my constituency stands on the stuff. That is the wealth that will come from development at Glyncastle. I urge the Leader of the House to make clear to his Cabinet colleagues the sense of investment in the coal mining industry of south Wales and the nonsense of the dogma expressed by his hon. Friends.
During the general election campaign, the Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh people that investment in the new strip mill at Port Talbot was a mere formality. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that mere formality will become a fact? Britain, and especially Wales, has the most efficient steel industry in the world. We demand that investment is made in it. I stress the need for the strip mill at Port Talbot to keep Britain's steel industry efficient so that we never again have to experience the events in the steel industry in the past few years.
As a Member sponsored by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—

Mr. Eggar: Ah.

Mr. Coleman: I am proud to declare my interest. I do not often hear that from Conservative Members. The ISTC is part of the triple alliance of the coal, railway and steel unions. Therefore, I mention another matter that arouses anxiety—the Government's intentions about the Serpell report. Like many people, I hope that the Government intend to consign that report to the incinerator and forget all about it. However, if that is not their intention, the


Government should come clean and tell us what they intend to do about it. Many groups in Britain are worried by the madness in the report. As long as the Government allow the uncertainty to continue, the worse the plight of the railways will become.
I hope that British Rail will be given funds to increase efficiency and that crackpot ideas such as those contained in the Serpell report are not implemented. The Leader of the House should tell us what the Government's plans for the railways are.
A week ago last Thursday, the "TV Eye" programme dealt with the death of young people who had been engaged on Manpower Services Commission schemes in industry. The programme highlighted the fact that the factories which employed those young people left a great deal to be desired. It was noticeable that trade unions were not in evidence in those workplaces. The Secretary of State for Employment, who has a responsibility in this regard, should have made a statement to the House on this aspect of safety. I urge the Leader of the House to ensure his attendance here to account for such a serious matter before we start the long recess.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I should like to bring to the House's attention one of those smaller matters which affect a large number of people and about which we could do something before the House rises. It is a practical matter—the payment of housing benefit.
The introduction of the housing benefit scheme had the full support of most hon. Members, although there were arguments about its format. However, local authorities are deeply worried about the way in which it is being administered and the difficulties that they face. The Minister concerned has extended the time limit for the introduction of the scheme and said, in answer to questions, that only some 15 authorities are having serious difficulties in administering the scheme. He said that most tenants are now catered for. However, some authorities, of which Manchester is one, face severe and continuing difficulties. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this matter because, if he would be kind enough to mention it to the relevant Ministers, I am sure that, with a little ingenuity, something could be done to help.
Many tenants are seriously worried about the way in which the scheme is being administered and about the fact that they cannot get their housing benefit sorted out. I am sure that all hon. Members have received letters on this subject. One such letter that I recently received said that a tenant had gone for 12 weeks without the matter being settled. Although it is in the landlord's interest to keep a good tenant in a property and it is in the local authority's interest to sort the problems out as quickly as possible, if payment of rent is uncertain for 12 weeks the tenant starts to worry about eviction. Elderly tenants in particular suffer strain and difficulty when the matter is not settled. People's anxieties are growing because they cannot get through to the town halls—the telephones are jammed and the mail is not answered, as large numbers of people are involved.
The problem does not arise simply for tenants. It is often forgotten that many of the people who are most

affected are small landlords who are often not well geared up for such problems. Tenants of local authorities are normally well catered for but tenants of small landlords frequently pay rent to landlords who have small numbers of tenancies but whose commitments are considerable. I received a letter today from a small landlord in my constituency. He wrote:
For God's sake do let me know as to when they will get paid. This is driving me crazy and I can't sleep because of these non-payments. I have electric bills to pay and rates to pay. I will not be able to meet them.
He also says that he cannot get through to the town hall by letter or by telephone.
No doubt I have criticised Manchester city council for inefficiencies in the past but this time many authorities face real difficulties. I understand that Birmingham and a few London boroughs face difficulties simply because of the sheer number of people involved.
A recent letter to me from the city treasurer of Manchester city council set out clearly the type of difficulty that some authorities face. He wrote:
Under the old Rebates Scheme Manchester granted benefits to about 39,000 people. We are now paying 95,000; the number is still rising and is approaching 100,000 cases that the DHSS estimated we would have on completion of the full start.
The scheme works well enough for Council tenants and for owner occupiers where we have our own records of rents or rates payable upon which to calculate entitlement to benefit. The difficulties are with private tenants where we do not have this basic information and have to depend on the applcant completing and returning a form which shows the details of his housing costs.
Many small landlords say that tenants are going to them in despair asking for help in filling out their forms. The city treasurer's letter continued:
Add to the clerical problems the uncertainties created by a new and complex system which gives a great many people less benefit than they had under the old arrangements and the result has been a flood of enquiries from the public. The Town Hall switchboard has been jammed by the numbers of calls and there have been continuous queues at the enquiry counters. Because of these enquiries the staff, half of whom are new and inexperienced, have only been able to make real progress in allowing benefit by weekend and overtime working.
We are now nearing the completion of the full start and the problem now is the volume of turnover and the time being taken for certificates to arrive from the DHSS. Over 13,000 certificates have been cancelled as applicants' circumstances have changed in the first three months of the scheme".
Simply because of the numbers, the turnover and the change of circumstances, the problem will not go away. I ask my right hon. Friend, before the recess, to ask the Department to give this matter serious consideration. The problem is not universal, and it will not cost vast sums of money to put right. For those caught in the nutcracker, however, the problem is considerable.
Furthermore, if we are not careful, the problem may lead to a growth of fraud. For the tenant who is entitled to have his rent paid for him, as the weeks go by the sum of money that eventually arrives at his place becomes very considerable. The less respectable tenant may succumb to temptation. The tenant has the right to cancel a direct payment to the landlord. In one case that was done without the landlord's knowledge and the money went to the tenant, who then disappeared. The number of such cases is tiny, but more and more difficulties will arise unless action is taken. I urge my right hon. Friend to ask the Department to give this matter urgent attention soon. A little trouble taken now will save a lot of trouble later on.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I do not believe that the House should adjourn before we have discussed the Government's attacks on the National Health Service and, in particular, their failure to deal with the scandalous conditions of the mentally handicapped. The Government are hoping to get away with this terrible situation by keeping it secret. Those conditions have been kept under wraps for a very long time, apart from some leaks to the newspapers— notably The Guardian. The Guardian has done a marvellous job in exposing the appalling conditions in some long-term institutions. Last Wednesday, The Guardian revealed that the development team had been exposing to a few local authorities the appalling situation of mentally handicapped people. Their sufferings are horrifying and should not be tolerated by the House.
The development team has produced 18 reports, 17 of which have been kept confidential. Those reports, which cover seven years, relate to 50 hospitals and 30 homes. Some of the experiences of mentally handicapped people are beyond belief. Some mentally handicapped people have been living in utter and absolute squalor, denied ordinary toilet facilities and privacy. Others have been grossly neglected.
That being so, we would expect the Government to do something immediately but—

Mr. Keith Best: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the strength of feeling that he brings to this matter. However, will he acknowledge that the Government have introduced a mental handicap initiative in Wales which will lead to the expenditure of an extra £26 million a year and is acknowledged as leading the world in that regard?

Mr. Ashley: I shall be very happy to deal with that point—or I should be, if I could read the writing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris). I do not have the help of Palantype today.
In Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, the situation is appalling. The distribution of bad conditions is patchy. There are varying conditions in different areas. However, the general picture is appalling, as is revealed by the development team's reports.
Many of those reports have not been shown to the public. The development team is allowed to report only on condition that its reports are not made public and that only the health authority concerned should see them. That is a ridiculous state of affairs. A highly skilled group of people judges the situation, but may not tell anyone, apart from members of the health authority, what it has found. That is absurd, especially as some of those living in institutions for the mentally handicapped suffer from fire risks and cruelty.
The health authorities should be anxious to have the facts made known, but they are not. They insist that only they should be informed. The development team is a shackled watchdog. It can neither make its findings public nor go to any region or hospital, except by the invitation of the health authority.
Those limitations rig the weights against the mentally handicapped. Hospitals will be put in order temporarily and the dirt will be swept under the carpet. In any institution—be it a school, the Army or any other body

—if people know that a person in authority is coming to investigate, they tend to hide things and to do some polishing. That is what is happening.
The development team has paid tribute to some of the nurses. I echo that tribute. However, there were also allegations of cruelty, and those allegations should be investigated. We should go much further than that, and I want to suggest a plan of action.
The mentally handicapped will not get proper resources and their situation will not change until the facts are known. My first proposal, therefore, is that there should be a public inquiry. We cannot sit back and allow scandal after scandal to occur. We must have an independent public inquiry, because of the patients' plight, the anxiety of their families and growing public concern.
Secondly, we should have a special ombudsman for the mentally handicapped. His presence would deter maladministration. He could certainly investigate possible instances of it and become an expert in his area.
Thirdly, the development team should be freed to go wherever it wants, at whatever time and without notice. Its reports should be made public. The Minister for Health may say—as he has said before—that publicising its reports would change the relationship between the development team and the authority. My response to that is—fine, let it be changed. However, any difficulty can be avoided by the issuing of two reports: one for the health authority and another for publication which does not name anyone. The thrust of the public report would be just the same as the other report, and the public would then know about these scandalous occurrences.
Fourthly, we should accelerate transfers from institutions. However—let us make no bones about it—transfers will not and should not be made without proper resources being available outside for the mentally handicapped. We need the cash, because it is the means of providing those resources to the mentally handicapped in the community.
The cuts that the Government have made damage not only a beleaguered minority—the mentally handicapped —but beleaguered minority areas and special districts which are short of funds. For example, according to the resource allocation working party, north Staffordshire is short of no less than £10 million per year. The cuts now being made mean a reduction of nearly £700,000 in north Staffordshire's budget. The West Midlands regional health authority has taken the easy option of slicing 1 per cent. from each district. That is quite wrong. It should inflict cuts only on those districts that are doing fairly well, and should leave alone those that are underfunded.
I have pointed briefly to the glaring injustices that exist. The first glaring injustice is the conditions that mentally handicapped people have to suffer in long-stay institutions. The second glaring injutice is the deprived districts. Much unnecessary suffering is being caused. This is not a party matter. Governments have never solved this problem but the present Government are exacerbating it. The conditions of the mentally handicapped are un-Christian and uncivilised and, therefore, unacceptable. I hope that the Government will do something radical as quickly as possible.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Before the House rises for the long recess I should like to focus its attention on some matters relating to occupational


pensions. In particular, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the growing problem being experienced by those who change jobs and suffer substantial losses of pension benefit in the process.
At a time of high unemployment it is essential that there should be the maximum mobility of labour so that people can take advantage of a job opportunity, no matter where it is, subject to their personal circumstances. At present, mobility of labour is being penalised because, in nine cases out of 10, a person who changes his job experiences a reduction in his pension expectation. I detect a growing resentment on the part of a sizeable number of people, and a growing resistance to accepting the challenge of taking up an appointment in another part of the counry. However, it is not as easy to solve the problem as some would have us believe.
The cost of occupational pensions to employers and, indeed, employees, has been kept down largely as a result of a "subsidy" from those who leave the schemes, and thus boost the pensions of those who do not. It follows that there is no way of ensuring fairer treatment for those who choose to change their jobs without some cost. The Government have a responsibility to make it clear that employers, those employees who stay, sometimes for a lifetime in one company, and those who choose to change their employment, will have to pay more. Each party will have to pay more if we are to resolve the dilemma satisfactorily. At present, how much or how little a job changer gets in pension rights greatly depends on the decisions of the trustees of his scheme. People in those circumstances have few statutory rights.
There are two options. The first is that, with Government backing, the pensions interests — the insurance companies and pension funds—should seek to achieve greater balance between the leavers and the stayers, through a voluntary clearing house, through whose mechanism the pension entitlement could be easily and swiftly transferred. That would require the underpinning of minimum pension rights by legislation and, also, a campaign of awareness in which the Government would have a major part to play in pointing out that in this vale of tears nothing is for nothing. All the parties involved—the employers, leavers and stayers—must expect to make a contribution.
The alternative is for the Government to introduce legislation with the aim of creating a structure to achieve some transferability. I am aware of the Government's reluctance to do that and I share it. It would be bound to add to bureaucracy and thus, some would argue, would be in itself undesirable. However, the problem is not new. The pensions interests have been aware of it for a long time. The Government have urged them to solve it if they do not want legislation from the Government to solve it for them. Yet I see no sign that pensions interests have taken it upon themselves to do what is urgently needed. Therefore, if they are unable or unwilling to embark upon a solution which would revolve around a clearing house of all the pension schemes under their control, the Government must think again about their preparedness to undertake this difficult task.
I especially wished to draw the attention of the House to that matter today because in September there will be a conference about it, sponsored by the Government. As it will take place during the recess, I urge the Government

to give a lead to voluntary action and to spell out the financial consequences for the parties involved if justice and balance are to be achieved.
On the question of national retirement pensions, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will respond to the Select Committee report on flexible retirement age? From time to time, and for a variety of reasons, the Government are pressed to show their intentions in that important aspect of social policy, but no final decisions appear to have been taken in response to that report. It is time the Government showed whether they support a flexible retirement age. Although it is folly to assume that we can solve, or materially contribute to alleviating, the unemployment problem by requiring men between the ages of 60 and 65 to retire, there should be greater opportunity for them to do so if they wish.
Finally, I return to occupational pension schemes. I impress upon the Leader of the House and, through him, the Secretary of State for Social Services, the great need for those concerned with providing such schemes to be more prepared in future than they have been in the past to furnish information to members of those schemes and prospective pensioners about how their contributions are invested on their behalf. The best-run pension schemes do that. The Government should urge those organising pension schemes to ensure that the people who contribute to them week by week should know how their money is invested and how their prospective pensions are growing.
I stress those points and hope that the Government will make their intentions clear before the recess.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to draw the attention of the Leader of the House and, indirectly, the Welsh Office, to the distress and inconvenience caused to many of my constituents by the noise and pollution from the M4 motorway, which divides the town of Newport in the north.
During the summer holiday season, traffic will build up considerably. The motorway is vital to the economy of south Wales, as it provides easy access to the area for tourists and brings industrial development, but the environment must be protected. I appreciate that some protests about that are frivolous. The motorway cuts through housing estates, especially in the St. Julian's area, where it runs at the bottom of many people's gardens. It was opened in 1967 and traffic has built up steadily since then.
The problem for those who live adjacent to it was made worse when sections were turned from a two-lane motorway into a three-lane motorway. From 5 o'clock in the morning the noise is shattering. It affects people's sleep, especially that of young children, and it is easy to imagine its effect on the nervous systems of nearby residents. There is much pollution and bad smells, and women have difficulty in keeping their washing clean. Even inside houses, with the doors and windows closed, the rumbling noise is always apparent.
I visited some of those families in their homes and I was made vividly aware of their genuine complaints. I have written to the Welsh Office many times outlining their complaints, but the replies always hide behind regulations. It is obvious that those houses must be properly insulated against noise, but the Welsh Office says that it has no


power or discretion to do that. The regulations state that protection can be provided only for houses affected by the construction or improvement of roadways carried out from 1969 onwards. However, the original M4 was opened in 1967. One would have thought that there would be some retrospective legislation on this matter.
Even when the road was changed from a two-lane to a three-lane motorway, the residents—especially those in the Harrogate road area—could not benefit, because the regulations specified that the properties affected must not be more than 300 metres from the road scheme. Although those residents suffer all the ill-effects of the new development — the added pollution and noise from a motorway at the bottom of their gardens—because the motorway was changed just up the road from them, they cannot obtain fencing or insulation to help to make their lives bearable. The Welsh Office has been too lackadaisical in providing trees and shrubs at the bottoms of the gardens.
I understand that a working party has been set up by the Department of Transport to review the regulations. I urge the Leader of the House to impress upon the Welsh Office the need to draw the attention of the working party to the difficulties facing people in Newport. If that is done, I am sure that the working party will see the logic of my remarks.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the summer recess I, too, believe that it should consider the rating system. I have long advocated the abolition of the vampire-like domestic rating system, which has outlived its usefulness and for which the death knell has already been tolled by the hard-pressed ratepayers, but to no avail. If action is not taken urgently in consequence of the Government's welcome Green Paper, this Dracula of an outmoded and unfair form of taxation will continue to creep round the towns and shires of the country, relentlessly sucking the financial lifeblood from those who are often forced to shoulder an unwarranted burden.
The rate support grant calculations might equally well be likened to Frankenstein's monster, for in its hideous complexity this aspect of the rating system also lumbers its way throughout the land. It was unquestionably right for the Government to base financial help upon needs rather than past spending patterns, but it is questionable whether experimentation with the factor ingredients has yet eliminated all the more grotesque features of this monster.
My own constituency can show clear evidence of the iniquities of the principle of domestic rates. The familiar scene of the two semi-detached houses—one the home of a pensioner and the other the home of a large family of wage earners—is surely etched on the minds of many hon. Members, as it is on mine. There can be little doubt about the difficulties experienced in finding a generally accepted alternative, and in no way do I and many of my colleagues wish to minimise these. However, with opportunities such as the poll tax and greater central funding, a solution surely can, and must, be arrived at urgently.
My county of Hertfordshire illustrates that other key area of concern — the method of calculation of rate support grant. The county has a 40 per cent. higher rateable value than average, yet only an 11 per cent. higher

income level that average. The discrepancy is clear and the possible threat to services, such as education, is apparent when one considers that the magic formula pays more attention to the former than to the latter.
It is undoubtedly right that local authorities should strictly control their expenditure and also look towards privatisation as a means for positive success in achieving better value for money. However, a fairer basis may well be created by the addition of a multiplier, as is already the case for London, to overcome any difficulties relating to high rateable value, or perhaps such problems could be alleviated by a method of capping, which also has a precedent. The Government deserve credit for starting to tackle the evils of domestic rates, but they need encouragement to lay to rest once and for all the horrors of the system.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I return to the matter that I raised a week ago under Standing Order No. 10—the announced formation by the British Steel Corporation, GKN and Lonrho of a joint company to acquire Hadfields and its operations at the East Hecla works in my constituency and then to shut it down. The closure of Hadfields, which has played a major role in the Sheffield steel industry for more than a century, will cost 750 jobs. More than 1,000 jobs at BSC will also be at risk, in addition to the 1,700 redundancies announced by BSC Special Steels only last November, and the 1,900 reundancies at Hadfields in 1981—the early casualties of this same rationalisation scheme.
The Government have admitted that the whole project is subject to there not being a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I do not see how there cannot be such a referral, on the following grounds: first, the impact on competition; secondly, the reduced flexibility to meet existing orders; thirdly, the influence on imports of a single supplier. Bill Sirs has warned:
Hadfields' order book would disappear off to Europe.
Fourthly, the scale of jobs lost consequential to this merger is not in the public interest.
This rationalisation arises from a Government strategy, code-named Phoenix 2. It is the result of three years of secret discussions — a process described by Mr. Ian MacGregor as horse trading—between the BSC and the private sector firms.
The next stage is expected to be a complex denationalisation of much of BSC Special Steels in south Yorkshire. As a result, the profitable parts of BSC will be sold to the private sector at knock-down prices. This is expected to be only the start of the programme of privatisation threatened by the Government, because on 9 March 1983 the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is on record as saying:
Ultimately there is no part of the BSC that cannot be privatised.
BSC Light Products and BSC Stainless, which are also in my constituency, are expected to be at the top of the list for privatisation, especially the spring department of BSC Light Products, which shares the Tinsley park site.
The experience of privatisation so far, in the light of Phoenix 1 and Phoenix 3, has meant, first, larger job losses than originally announced; secondly, further rationalisation in capacity; and, thirdly, huge losses. Government strategy has been discussed only in secret,


offering little opportunity for a proper evaluation and no consultation with those most affected—the trade unions and workers whose jobs are threatened.
Sheffield city council deplores the way in which the future of the city's economy is decided without reference to it. The people of Sheffield have invested their lives in the steel industry and they have a right to be heard in a matter of such importance to them. The considerations that the Sheffield city council would have liked to have brought to the Minister's attention relate to alternative policies. For example, despite the arguments advanced that the markets for steel have collapsed, the city council would point to major capital projects which would meet the social and economic needs of the country and also create a major demand for steel. One of them—rail electrification—on which the city council has done much work, would involve a firm just across the road from Hadfields — GEC Traction—which is desperate for orders. There should be a ministerial statement on this matter before the recess.
The workers at GEC Traction, as well as those at Hadfields and BSC, believe that they deserve much better treatment, even from this Conservative Government. They have devoted their lives and skills, as did their fathers and grandfathers, to the development of an incomparable engineering steels industry in south Yorkshire. That industry has encountered great difficulties in recent years, as have many other industries, mostly for the same external reasons. The south Yorkshire steel industry is being devasted and laid waste by an unfeeling, doctrinaire Government, and I hope the Leader of the House will convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that it is likely to put a strain on some Conservative as well as Labour supporters in south Yorkshire.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: In the brief time available I wish to raise an issue of human rights. I want to question the Government's decision to agree a document at the conclusion of the Madrid conference which turns off the spotlight which has been upon the Soviet Union when its contempt for human rights has been most blatant and heartless. And I want to raise again the case of Yosef Begun, whose trial is scheduled to begin in Moscow today.
We should not adjourn for the summer recess until these matters have been voiced again. To do otherwise is to lose an opportunity to focus public attention upon an evil which could be easily be ended.
The increasing persecution of the Jewish minority in the Soviet Union is a disgrace for which that country should be continually shamed on the world stage until it stops.
First, Soviet Jews are denied the right of emigration and reunification with their families, which is a cornerstone of human rights. As many as 250,000 Jews have been allowed to leave the Soviet Union over the past 15 years, but they have left behind 500,000 relatives who wish to join them. Of those, 381,000 have made a formal request to do so. The others have not applied because to make the request is to lose one's job, one's income, one's standing in the community and places at university for one's children and to be prosecuted for being out of work and a parasite. Now, the gates have been more or less completely closed.
People are not being allowed to re-apply for visas once refused. There can be no stronger evidence of the complete failure of the great Communist dream than that it can hold itself together only by stopping those who wish to leave from doing so.
The act of refusal is wicked enough. To refuse emigration, having signed article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares that
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
is to show contempt for international institutions which we should never tolerate without continual exposure.
Secondly, the Soviet Union denies Jews the right to teach or learn their languages, or to enjoy their culture. UNESCO, which ought to act, has done nothing. Virtually all Jewish institutional life has been stopped. There are no Jewish schools, the Hebrew language has no official status and those who teach it publicly or privately are categorised as unemployed parasites and are convicted and sent to prison. No Jewish publications are allowed, rabbinical training is non-existent and religious services are often prevented even in private homes.
However, principle seven of the Helsinki final act, citing the international covenant on civil and political rights, states in article 27:
in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
Article 18 says that each individual has the right
to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Along with this repression there is the most flagrant and virulent anti-semitism, encouraged actively by the Soviet authorities.
As the United States permanent representative to the United Nations put it recently at a world conference in Jerusalem:
With the exit gates virtually closed to Jews, with their right to enjoy their culture and practice their religion denied, with their schools closed and their national language outlawed, with the propaganda of hatred being increasingly disseminated against them, is it any wonder that the Jews of Soviet Russia seek to exercise their fundamental right to emigrate?
Who is Yosef Begun? Hon. Members will know who he is. He is "a prisoner of Zion", one of that brave, brave band of men and women, like Anatoly Shcharanshy, sentenced to 13 years in a labour camp in 1978 on a trumped-up charge of treason, like Dr. Victor Brailovsky, Ida Nudel, Vladimir Slepak, Kim Fridman, Yuri Orlov and many others, all of whom have served prison sentences because they want the freedom to leave the Soviet Union which the constitution of the Soviet Union pretends to guarantee. Now, the re-sentencing of refuseniks is becoming more and more common.
Yosef Begun is the recipient of the award for 1983 of the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry of this Parliament, which was given to a representative in Mr. Begun's absence by the Earl of Home last week. He is 51 years old and was 39 years old when, in April 1971, he first applied to emigrate to Israel. He was then an acting senior lecturer in higher mathematics at the Moscow institute of agricultural production. He was immediately dismissed. He was allowed to do only menial work and was usually dismissed whenever he was arrested because he was said to be truanting from work.
Yosef Begun asked the authorities for permission to teach Hebrew and was, with other refuseniks, refused permission to do so. He gave Hebrew lessons without permission privately and taught the Jewish culture. His fame spread. To stop this the Soviet authorities arrested him, charged him with being a parasite, imprisoned him for three months and sentenced him to two years' exile in Siberia. When he was released he was refused permission to live in Moscow. Ten weeks later he was re-arrested and sentenced to three years in exile for violating residence regulations. He has been arrested, harassed by the KGB, has had his property stolen, has been vilified in public, and yet his courage has not been broken. He has continued to appeal, to protest, to issue statements for the cause of all persecuted Soviet Jews. Since November he has been held incommunicado in Vladimir prison.
Today, Yosef Begun is facing charges under the notorious article 70 of the Soviet criminal code, which accuses him of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. The penalty that he risks is harsh. Most of the lawyers in Moscow are not allowed to defend him, and those few who are will do so only if he pleads guilty, so he is defending himself. The public and the press are unlikely to be admitted. Injustice is likely to be done once more under the Soviet system.
Who is Yosef Begun? He is the latest of a long line of courageous symbols of Soviet oppression. He is known throughout the world. The world is watching his trial.
No more noise from abroad",
his second wife has been warned. That proves that the Soviet authorities are concerned about world opinion. Every refusenik who has ever left the Soviet Union says the same thing.
I raise the name of Yosef Begun again today. I raise it on the day of his trial. I raise it in the mother of Parliaments. I raise it so that he will know, as assuredly he will be told, that neither he nor his cause is forgotten. Whatever documents are signed in Madrid, those who care about human rights will fight the harder because of the suffering inflicted on such people as Yosef Begun by a tyrannical and cruel regime.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise to raise one matter that should be ventilated in the House before it goes into recess and to seek from the Leader of the House an assurance that there will be an oral statement in the House on the Government's intentions regarding the future of the fast breeder reactor system. This may ring a bell in the memory of the Leader of the House, because at the end of last year he said that this subject merited a statement on which questions could be put to the responsible Minister on matters of moment both for the industry and for my constituents who depend on the future of Dounreay.
Unfortunately, the Leader of the House's assurance on that occasion that a statement would be made was interpreted by him to mean that a written answer was sufficient fulfilment of that undertaking. Lest there be any doubt in his mind, I make it plain that I am asking for an oral statement on which supplementary questions can be asked in the House. It is unsatisfactory that the future of a great industry of this nature should be set out in a ministerial statement that is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at the time that the statement is made.
This subject is of particular importance because Parliament is about to go into recess for three months. I have been informed by representatives of the press that an announcement is expected from the Department of Energy. I have also been informed by the Department of Energy that a statement will be made fairly soon. I submit that the Leader of the House should use his good offices to ensure that the statement is made before Parliament rises.
According to the responsible Minister, it is now not in his hands, but in the hands of his colleagues to decide whether a statement will be made. I understand the processes of government. There are conflicting claims on time for ministerial statements, but the appropriateness of an oral statement of this nature is beyond question.
Let me recall to the Leader of the House a short history of the subject. For some years the Department of Energy had been promising to respond to the recommendation of the Atomic Energy Authority that the next phase in the development of the fast reactor system should be the construction of a commercially developed fast reactor. After about three years, the Government's response was negative. The Secretary of State for Energy said that the programme for the development of a fast reactor must be greatly extended and that there would be no case for constructing fast commercial reactors in series before the next century. That statement, made in December last year, was obscure. It gave no indication whether the Government intended to authorise the construction of a commercially developed fast reactor at any time within the next decade, and created great uncertainty in the minds of my constituents as to what their future would be.
The national importance of this matter is clear to all who are interested in energy. It is important to my constituency because 2,300 people are directly employed by the Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay, and many ancillary jobs are wholly dependent on the continuation of employment at about that level.
A statement by the Minister, in the form of a written answer last December, was followed by a submission to the Government from the generating boards and other representatives of the nuclear industry, headed by the AEA, but the Government have several times refused to make that submission public. Therefore, great uncertainty remains not only about the Government's intentions, but about what has been suggested to them as the appropriate next step in the development of the fast reactor system.
The time has come to unveil to Parliament the proposals and intentions for this important technological industry. It would be improper to announce any decision that deeply affects so many people not only in my constituency, but in Risley and other AEA establishments where design work on the fast reactor is done, in circumstances in which we cannot question Ministers on the implications of their statements. The extension of the programme into the next century, which the Minister revealed somewhat covertly in his December statement, will have serious consequences for employment. It is intolerable that the uncertainty should continue.
The Secretary of State for Energy requested a speedy report from the industry on how the programme should be adapted to the Government's new time scale. The industry complied and he received its recommendations in February. The Government, however, have not acted speedily, allowing five months to elapse before issuing the slightest hint of their response.
It is already clear that the AEA's budget is to be cut substantially, but it is not clear whether the cuts will affect this project, although the Secretary of State for Energy spoke of concentrating the attenuated programme on Dounreay. Furthermore, it is not clear what the employment consequences will be, there or at Risley.
In the light of the clear public interest in the matter, especially in Scotland which recognises that the economy of the north highlands depends crucially on this project, it is appropriate that the Leader of the House should seek to ensure that an oral statement is made before the House goes into recess.

Mr. Keith Best: We should not be melodramatic, but solvent abuse could become a major problem among young people. It has already been identified as a cause for great concern. The House should not adjourn for the recess until the Government have answered certain questions.
On 20 April 1982, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), in his Adjournment debate, reported the chief constable of Northumbria as saying:
Solvent abuse is not merely a cult, as some experts would have it—it causes death and misery to many
and as posing the question:
Do we go ahead and do something or do we dither and hold back hoping that it will go away?
The then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg), was asked for national figures showing the size of the problem. The hon. Member for Jarrow said that if such figures did not exist the House should ask why. I now ask why. My hon. Friend replied on that occasion:
More research is needed … Reliable information on the numbers of sniffers or the proportion whose misuse becomes prolonged is not available."—[Official Report, 20 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 240–43.]
Why is the information not available, and what efforts are being made to obtain it?
My hon. Friend went on to explain how the Government were assisting the voluntary agencies —helping the helpers, as he described it. A training film has been produced by the Central Office of Information. A book has been published as an aid to professionals, and the Department has agreed to fund studies into solvent abuse.
The House wants to know what has happened to the film, what use has been made of the book, and what studies have been undertaken with funding from the Department of Health and Social Security. My hon. Friend said that his officials were consulting the voluntary services to learn what more the Government could do. The House is entitled to know the results of those consultations so that steps can be taken to solve this grave problem and thus reassure the public and help the victims of solvent abuse.
More than 40 young people died last year from solvent abuse. The number has quadrupled since 1975. On 12 March 1981, a parliamentary question elicited the following written answer from the then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young):

We are actively exploring a way of collecting statistics and what more can be done to educate parents and children and improve local co-operation." — [Official Report, 12 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 374.]
What has happened as a result of those explorations? We must know.
On 25 October last, I tabled a parliamentary question as to the number of persons admitted to hospitals suffering from the effects of solvent misuse. I was told that figures were not available. The next day I initiated an Adjournment debate. I asked for an assurance that the Government would attempt to assemble more statistics from the police, health and social services, education authorities and other bodies dealing with young people. Information collected by the police is not available from a central point. It is a scandal that the House cannot ascertain the nature and extent of a problem which is causing grave anxiety to the public at large and is of particular concern to those who suffer from solvent misuse. Solvent abuse has been acknowledged as a problem since the 1950s.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Services informed me that his officials would report by the end of 1982 on investigations of ways in which the detection of solvent abuse might be enhanced. What is the result? In November 1982, a Crown court established for the first time that solvent abuse came within the road traffic offence of being unfit to drive through drugs. Earlier that year, the first British soldier was charged with the offence of glue sniffing and was convicted. With the existence now of a glue sniffing detector similar to alcohol detectors, the Government can introduce effective legislation making the habit illegal. When my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was Minister of State Home Office, he said in October 1982 that the possibility of changes in the law would be considered, so that has not been ruled out. The present offence of being drunk in a public place might be extended to include intoxication from solvents.
On 21 December 1982, a ten-minute Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Jarrow to try to restrict the sale of certain glues to children under 16 years old, but the Bill was not enacted. The law has, however, been changed in Scotland. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) had the good fortune to see his private Member's Bill become law. It adds solvent abuse to conditions which indicate the need for a compulsory care order under a procedure that is peculiar to Scotland —it is not available in England and Wales—whereby a child can be referred to a children's hearing if he or she is discovered to be involved in solvent abuse. That procedure would not be appropriate in England and Wales, but the House should have the answers to those questions so that the matter can proceed and we can successfully resolve it before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I rise to speak on a subject that I believe should be discussed before the summer recess. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. The topic relates to industrial relations in one particular company — the National Mutual Life Assurance Society—but it will have wider implications for industrial relations generally.
This breakdown in industrial relations results from the misguided repeal of section 11 of the Employment


Protection Act by section 19 of the Employment Act 1980. The National Mutual Life Assurance Society is a highly profitable organisation that has no shareholders; its profits are distributed by means of bonuses; and it has 400 employees, the majority of whom belong to ASTMS.
The history of this dispute with the company goes back quite some time. Initially, although the majority of employees wanted to belong to ASTMS and wanted the trade union to be recognised, the company repeatedly refused. Instead, it set up a staff consultative committee, a tabby cat of an organisation that could discuss virtually nothing. However, as a result of the wishes of ASTMS members, the union eventually made a reference under section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, and a survey of employees carried out by ACAS discovered that 60 per cent. of them wished ASTMS to be recognised. Despite that finding, it took 12 months to negotiate an agreement, which was eventually signed on 12 October 1978. It will, therefore, be seen that this company has a long history of anti-trade union activity.
In that agreement, the union committed itself to a common objective of ensuring maximum efficiency within the society for the benefit of policy-holders and employees. It also agreed to refrain from any stoppages or restrictions on production until the procedure had been exhausted. I am sure that would have the agreement of all hon. Members.
Paragraph 3.4 of the agreement stated:
the Society undertakes to consult the Union and resolve any consequent issues through the negotiating procedure before implementing significant alterations in conditions of employment or major changes in established work practices, or any other major changes which would have a significant impact on the working environment.
There has never been any industrial unrest or trouble, despite the fact that there was provocation by the company when the chairman of the ASTMS negotiating side was suddenly made redundant, although there were no other redundancies. However, off its own bat, the company decided to renege on the agreement, and on 24 May 1983 it gave notice to ASTMS of its intention to terminate the procedure and recognition agreement in August. No reasons or explanations were given to the employees, who were told that for negotiation purposes they would return to the old, discredited staff consultative committee which had been firmly rejected. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why the employees joined the union.
Had section 11 not been repealed, I doubt whether the company would have dared to do this, because ASTMS would again have appealed to ACAS for recognition and I am sure that it would have been granted. As a result, the union would then have had recourse to the central arbitration committee in the absence of an agreement, and I am sure that it would have asked for the restoration of the old agreement or the recognition of a new agreement. I am equally certain that that appeal would have been successful.
However, because there is no section 11, these employees have no recourse to any legislation that would make for good industrial relations. They can merely protest to the company. We have therefore seen the evil hand of a reactionary company crashing its weak employees.
One of the most important democratic freedoms is the right to belong to a trade union, as well as the right of that union to bargain collectively on behalf of its members, yet the repeal of section 11 has meant the withdrawal of that

right. Instead of devoting so much of his time to the relationship of trade unionists with their unions, the Secretary of State for Employment should devote that time to the relationship of trade unionists with their employers. This is particularly true of the finance sector where the unions are not strong and where this dispute could have wide repercussions.
I ask the Leader of the House to bring this matter to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Secretary of State to request the company to restore the recognition agreement that previously existed and to abide by it in both spirit and practice.

Mr. John Carlisle: I wish to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two matters, one concerning the future and one relating to the past. The matter concerning the future is the Commonwealth conference which will take place in New Delhi in November and which will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In a written answer to me last week my right hon. Friend stated that she would not be surprised if the Gleneagles agreement was discussed at that conference. Therefore, I wish to pass on to her one or two messages, not only from the Conservative Benches but from the British people as well.
Let it never be forgotten that the Gleneagles agreement, known as the Commonwealth declaration of sport and signed in 1977 by a Labour Prime Minister, has never received the assent of this House, the assent of sportsmen or the consideration and assent of the British people. The most up-to-date public opinion poll on people's opinions of relations with South Africa shows that 91 per cent. of our people think that we should renew our sporting links with that country. It is remarkable that while the British Government continue to abide by and rubber-stamp the Gleneagles agreement, despite the many observations that have been made they refuse to accept the views of those who have been to South Africa.
The British Sports Council, under the leadership of its chairman, Mr. Dick Jeeps, went there in 1980 and came back after a comprehensive tour to explain that in its opinion, sports law had moved towards virtually total integration and that such sporting links should now be renewed. It is to the Government's shame that we continue to abide by this agreement and take absolutely no notice of the many observations of fact-finding missions that have gone to that country. I hope that when my right hon. Friend goes to New Delhi and that motion comes up on the agenda for discussion, as undoubtedly it will, she will remember that many people in the House and the country would like to see that agreement abandoned for ever.
The second important matter that I wish to raise has occurred in the last fortnight — the conduct of the Minister responsible for sport over his involvement, and perhaps unwittingly the involvement of the Prime Minister, in the recent resolution before Marylebone cricket club that a team should be sent to South Africa. To my own personal disappointment, the Minister felt it necessary to intervene in that dispute before a tour had been agreed. Had a tour been agreed, or had some decision been taken, I could have understood the position that he would have had to take under the agreement. The answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) originated from the


Minister's Department, and for the Minister to advise members of the MCC on how they should vote in a private ballot is to the shame of his Department and this House. I thought it unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also thought it necessary to intervene. I think that she was being guided by her head rather than her heart. Her intervention had some effect on the ballot. The Government have no business to interfere in the decisions of a private club.
A final message to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is to go to South Africa and look at matters there for themselves. Despite the several exhortations that I have made to Ministers, only one actually set foot in South Africa during the last Parliament, and that was to change planes. We cannot continue to criticise the South Africans and to abide by that agreement without visiting South Africa. I hope that before the House returns on 24 October my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, or even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will have made such a visit.

7 pm

Mr. John McWilliam: This is the traditional occasion when the House debates a motion that the House should adjourn, and the Opposition try to give reasons why it should not do so. I shall relieve apprehension among colleagues by saying at the outset that I am the last person to deny hon. Members—especially Scottish Members whose children will be returning to school shortly — the opportunity to see something of their families.
That is not to say that there are not important issues that should be disposed of before the House rises. Many of those issues have been raised by hon. Members tonight. In addition, important events could occur that would require the House to return during the recess. What contingency plans has the Leader of the House made to deal with any untoward circumstances that may necessitate the recall of the House?
I was pleased to listen to the careful and moving maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). His reference to Keir Hardie in 1893 and the current unemployment figures in the north-east must strike a chord with many hon. Members. Indeed, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), whose remarks dealt generally with law and order, mentioned the disgraceful nature of unemployment and the degradation that it causes. I do not have a great deal of faith in the solutions being put forward by the Government to combat unemployment. I cannot hold out much hope to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West for any real alleviation of the problem by his party. However, I thank him for his support on that issue.
The debate has been interesting not only in the breadth of issues that it has covered but in the contrast that can be drawn. The moving speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on behalf of Yosef Begun must be applauded by all hon. Members. The House must condemn persecution wherever it occurs, whether on social, religious or racial grounds. Therefore, I have difficulty in commending the speech of the hon.

Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on anything other than its brevity and clarity. I fundamentally disagree with the points that he raised.
My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) raised important points, especially the plea for industrial safety for youngsters in industries that are less than well organised. That point should be considered by the Government, and I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about it.
Another concern is the Hadfields merger and the need for a proper statement that the House can debate. We are not sure yet about the outcome of the steel negotiations with the European Community. We have fully honoured our commitment to reduce steel output, and we have no intention of reducing it further. If the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not make a statement before the recess, there will be trouble in the steel areas.
I well understand the problems being faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) in his dealings with the National Mutual Life Assurance Society. I hope that he is not looking to the Government to solve them. I wish to look at the proposals of the Secretary of State for Employment, but, from what I hear, I do not think that the employees of that firm have a hope.
The only point during the debate that tempted me to divide the House was that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about discrimination against disabled youngsters in the youth training scheme. No hon. Member, on either side of the House, would wish for such discrimination. We all want the Government to deal with the problem quickly, and we all want a statement from the responsible Minister before the end of the week. Frankly, I find the matter disgusting. It is a terrible indictment on what many people would claim to be a civilised society. We are talking not about the totally disabled, but about those who are disabled in some way but in many other ways have great abilities to offer Britain. If those abilities are wasted, it is to the shame of us all.
The most widely discussed issue tonight has been rates, ratepayers and rate reform. During the 1974 general election I was the unsuccessful candidate for Edinburgh, Pentlands. I remember the Prime Minister saying then that she wanted to sort out the rates and that there had to be a better system. I have read the Layfield report—I even gave evidence to the committee on behalf of the Scottish Counties of Cities Association. As the former treasurer of the city of Edinburgh, I applaud the idea of financial probity in local government. What I dislike is political meddling in local government by those who do not understand what is taking place locally, have no interest in the area and are merely using twisted formulae to determine what should happen in local government.
If hon. Members have problems with their ratepayers complaining that the rates are too high, they are probably in the same situation as I am, faced with increasing rates and declining services. That is not because local authority employees are lazy or because councillors are unimaginative; it is because since 1979 the Government have cut the rate support grant in general and in specific areas have cut it substantially. Therefore, it has become a lower proportion of the expenditure that local authorities have to bear.
It is no use Conservative Members saying how terrible some local authorities are because the ratepayers are


having to pay so much extra or saying that the councillors are disgusting. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) said that local authorities are interested only in their own political philosophy, but I remind the House that councillors are elected to implement their political philosophy. If the majority of those who voted in Gateshead had voted Conservative, presumably the hon. Gentleman would not complain. However, if the council represents the majority of those who voted Labour, the hon. Gentleman should not complain if it tries to carry out not only its democratic duty but in many cases its statutory duties. Local authorities are in danger of not being able to do that.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman said that he was city treasurer in Edinburgh. I spent 25 in local government. In those days local government concentrated on the functions given to it by Parliament; it did not try to become a second independent country.

Mr. McWilliam: Local government can only concentrate on those functions for which it has statutory or other responsibility. It cannot spend money on functions for which it does not have responsibility, other than the 2p rate. If it is the 2p rate about which the hon. Gentleman complains, that is fine. However, let us look at all the parish councils in Britain which spend the 2p rate and see how objective they are in spending it in a way which benefits all the ratepayers. That is the other part of the rule that the hon. Gentleman forgets. If that were done he would find that the parish councils in Britain combined probably spend as much as the Greater London council.
I know that the GLC is thought of as the ogre—the terrible thing that happens when Labour takes control—and that it is marvellous when Conservatives are in control. But that is to forget the court cases which are now outstanding from the previous period during which the Conservatives were in control. There is the problem that London is a large area which has to be properly administered in some way. I look forward anxiously, but with apprenhension, to seeing the plans of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the governance of London without a GLC. I hope that we can at least keep a decent transport, education and planning system in London. If the Government can satisfy me about that, I do not care what they call the body that achieves it.
We are coming to the end of a short period at the beginning of a Parliament when we do not know what will happen to those great Departments of State, the services of which provide help, succour and sustenance to so many millions in our population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unforthcoming when he made a statement in the House recently. Therefore, when the Leader of the House replies, I hope that he will give us a firm commitment that the intentions of the Chancellor and of other spending Departments will be made clear before the House rises or that the House will be recalled if any large section of the population of the United Kingdom is to be substantially worse off as a result of decisions that are taken.
I am full of apprehension about the health and education services and about the future of many people in my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North and in many other constituencies, where unemployment is more than 20 per cent. I hope that when

the Leader of the House replies, he will reassure not only those hon. Members who have spoken, but all those who rely on public services.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Over many years the Adjournment debate which precedes the recess has acquired a character all of its own. I have learnt to sit through a litany of discontent and foreboding about the Government's policies and requests to give an undertaking that they will be reversed or abandoned, all within the week. I must say at the outset that I shall not live up to expectations on that score.
I assure the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Mc William) that there are provisions for the recall of the House in Standing Order No. 143. Should it be necessary for the House to be recalled, it would be as a result of Ministers making representations to Mr. Speaker.
About 20 speeches have been made and they have covered a wide range of detailed points. As I look at hon. Members, I realise that many of those speeches contained a number of specific questions and points and I want to say at the outset that they will all be referred to the relevant Minister. I say that to excuse the House the refrain that I would otherwise have to make repeatedly.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made a speech which had many engaging qualities, one of which was that he spoke to the motion. He said that he (lid not wish us to go away for our recess. He must have been influenced by what was said by Keir Hardie in 1893, about whom he spoke. I have quickly checked, and I find that in that year the House sat right through until the end of August. However, it did so substantially on account of the Irish legislation. This might be a useful point at which to begin answering the detailed speeches, starting with that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would show great circumspection in any meetings that might be arranged between the United Kingdom Government and that of the Irish Republic. I think that his argument was that political progress was a code word which was likely to be only too well understood — or misunderstood, according to one's taste and temperament. Of course, in a situation where the constitution of the Irish Republic lays specific claim to the six counties of Northern Ireland such difficulties are likely to be there. It is a discipline required of all who take part in Irish debates to bear that in mind, while hoping that there can be perfectly amicable relationships with the Irish Republic based upon mutual interest and good will and nevertheless paying regard to the fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom.
If the House could not take constituency speeches, it would be denuded. I intend to discuss those which touched upon national issues and then those which related to international issues. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) must have spoken for many others when he talked about the pollution experienced by those who live close to motorways.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke powerfully about the upheavals in the steel industry and the way in which they affect a city whose pride at being the cradle of the steel-making industry is that much more wounded by what is happening. I understand that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) took up the issue of the Association of London Authorities. Since the Prime Minister said as recently as 14 July that we should all pay due regard to his warning, I can do no better than underline what was said from such a distinguished quarter and add no more.
The hon. Member for Blaydon said that unemployment naturally concerned all Members of the House, not only the hon. Member for Stockton, North, but my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins), who argued that unemployment must never be permitted to drift into a way of life. He identified the difficulties experienced by young people. That was underlined by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withenshawe (Mr. Morris), who talked about the connection between the youth training scheme and the disabled. I shall ensure that his anxieties are attended to instantly.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House saying that there will be a statement before the House rises? It is an important matter.

Mr. Biffen: I am trying to gallop through my reply. I cannot guarantee that there will be an oral statement. Let us see how we go with the undertaking that I have given.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the importance of the fast nuclear reactor programme and the developments which he believes will come to fruition shortly. I shall examine the matter to see exactly what the position is. I unwittingly misled the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, so I hope he will excuse me if I do not say that there will be an oral statement. We all learn our lessons. I shall see what can be done.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), talked about the problems of ASTMS and union recognition. He asked me to mention that to the Secretary of State for Employment so that it becomes part of that wider debate which we are promised in the autumn. I shall certainly do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West talked of the need for adequate punishments for violent crimes. I am certain that we shall return to that issue and I shall ensure that the Home Secretary is made aware of my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend will admit that his is but one of many speeches on the issue.
The campaign for a more equitable rating system is that much more welcome because it is all so familiar. The sharp and compelling nature of the speeches and the thin inadequacy of my answer remind me of previous debates on the summer Adjournment. My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) and Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) made well-argued speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale developed the argument and gave an alternative. He suggested a poll tax, said that rates should be levied at a lower incidence and that there should be joint central and local financing of the teaching profession. Once the debate moves into that area it becomes less joyful and a more tedious consideration of how the furniture now sits in the living room and how it may be reorganised before Auntie Maud comes for the weekend. The debate has been useful

in that it has thrown up yet again that the fact on the question of rates it is a good deal easier to engage in analysis than to find a remedy.
The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) made a spirited defence of the coal industry. I accept his claim for a powerful level of investment in that industry, but surely it must be matched by the closure of high-cost pits which otherwise would be a drag on the coal board's ability to compete with other forms of energy. The hon. Gentleman also talked of the number of accidents investigated by the Manpower Services Commission. That is an important matter which should be given attention.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), in a tic-tac fashion during his speech, that his powerful request for a speedy determination on housing benefits would be attended to.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) argued the case for the mental health services within the National Health Service. As ever, he made a persuasive speech and I hope that he will give the House a second edition of it when my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) speaks about the financing of the social services. That debate is at the heart of current politics and the House benefited from the right hon. Gentleman's contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) demonstrated that he will be a formidable campaigner on the need for greater transferbility of pensions. He is riding with the times and the issue will be of great topicality and immediacy two or three years from now. Even today it is echoed in the Chamber and outside. I shall attend to what he said about Select Committees ad the recommendation on flexible retirement. I shall also examine what he said about no ministerial reply being given as yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) explained that he would be absent from the Chamber for my reply. He spoke about glue-sniffing, a topic which creates interest on both sides of the House. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be anxious to take account of his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) spoke about the Gleneagles agreement. One must tread with delicacy, but from time to time the House of Commons becomes properly interested in the question of government by invitation. In a sense we must weigh the legitimate role of government by invitation within our system of law. My hon. Friend will not feel daunted by occasionally being unpopular in certain quarters, because he will crusade for his corner. It is imperative that the House faces the many implications that go beyond the soft, cosy, liberal headlines.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a moving speech about the condition of Jews in the Soviet Union and the trial of Yosef Begun. As I reflected, I thought that in the Soviet Union we were witnessing the durability of nationalism. All the national minorities in Russia today are as proud of their identities as they ever were. Seventy years of Marxism has not obliterated that characteristic. There are messages for us all in the enduring strength of nationalism as a political and socially cohesive unit. My hon. and learned Friend made his point in that context effectively.
It is no paradox that I could enjoy the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West who


asked that, notwithstanding our military posture, we should try to develop peaceful relationships with the Warsaw pact countries. It is essential to remember at all times that there are no such things as eternal allies—only eternal interests. Historically there is no reason to suppose that this country is in conflict with the countries of eastern Europe which are captive members of the Warsaw pact. They have their individual characteristics. There is no monolithic unity about that organisation and I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention.
Finally, as I come to the conclusion of my speech and to the prospect of the recess, leaving this place of work and returning to it in October, I was asked to do something about the telephones. Many speeches have been delivered from the heart, but I suspect that speeches on the telephones were delivered from the heart, double square. At the end of the day this is where we come to argue, to be law makers, to reflect upon the nation's fortunes and misfortunes and the Government's performance within it all. We are but a microcosm of the wider nation that we serve. I think that we do it remarkably well. I think that we do it even with all the so-called shortcomings of pay, equipment and so on. I believe that we are a first-class Parliament: let us believe that ourselves and convey the belief to others.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 24th October and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker shall have repotted the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Nationalised Industries (Standing Charges)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), perhaps I should remind the House of the statement made by Mr. Speaker last week that, except when otherwise indicated on the list of Adjournment debates which has been pinned in the No Lobby, debates should not exceed one and a half hours.

Mr. Michael Fallon: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on Friday when the House last met I drew attention to the need in government for a medium-term taxation strategy, to run in parallel with the medium-term financial strategy to illustrate to taxpayers the Government's proposals for a steady and gradual reduction in direct taxation of all types. I favour the complete abolition of income tax—a tax on earnings—and its substitution by a purchase tax—a tax on spending. But in the event that such a proposal might be thought too radical even for a radical Chancellor, I welcome the opportunity tonight to draw attention to another area of direct taxation, an area that was once subtle but is now more blatant—I refer to standing charges.
Standing charges are levied in the gas, electricity, water and telecommunications industries. They are now considerable. In the gas and electricity industries they generate a revenue of about £500 million a year. It amounts to 7·4 per cent. of the British Gas Corporation's revenue, 13 per cent. of the revenue of all electricity boards, and, in the case of British Telecom, which has the nerve to charge us in rental each quarter a sum now greater than that required to purchase a single machine available on the private market, the rental charge now comprises 32 per cent. of current revenue.
Not only are these charges large but they have risen with great rapidity in recent years. The British Gas Corporation's standing charge in 1977 was £1·50. Last autumn it had reached £9·20—a 600 per cent. increase in five years. These charges have caused wide annoyance in all sections of our community, but in particular they hit single people, those who have to make choices—hard choices — for themselves, especially the elderly. Standing charges are the pensioner's curse.
I make no apology for raising this subject again, although I know that it was raised frequently during the last Parliament. I believe that it is appropriate to raise it


again tonight for three reasons. First, we have before us now the consultants' reports. I have read the reports on the British Gas Corporation's standing charges. Secondly, it is six months since both the gas and electricity industries introduced a 50–50 rebate scheme to which I shall return in a moment. It is time enough, therefore, to review the working of that scheme. Thirdly, we have a new Government not perhaps fog-bound by previous thinking. In the Under-Secretary of State for Energy I am sure that we have a Minister not only for energy but of energy—a Minister of speed and determination who can cut through to the heart of the problem that seems to have bedevilled Governments of both complexions who have commissioned a series of internal and external reviews over the past few years.
Governments have suggested that two principles are involved. First, there is the distinction between unit charge and standing charge and, secondly, the fairness of the actual costs that are put into the standing charge itself. I do not accept that the distinction between the unit charge and the standing charge is necessarily valid. It appears to me that standing charges benefit producers, particularly public monopolies. Standing charges benefit administrators and their work forces rather than the consumer who has to make the choice. They actually make it more difficult for the consumer to make more efficient use of the resources that he needs.
I do not accept the principle that is often alleged in defence of standing charges — the principle of nondiscrimination between one group of consumers and another. It appears to me that that principle itself is invalidated by subsequent and worse types of discrimination—discrimination against the low user in particular. Standing charges, in short, are the logical expression of the system whereby monopoly producers make life easier for themselves at the expense of consumers who need to make efficient use of their resources.
At this point I come to the rebate schemes that were announced and implemented for gas and electricity in February this year and the similar lower user rebate scheme operated by British Telecom. The introduction of that rebate shows some anxiety in the heart of Government—in the Department itself perhaps—and certainly in the public utilities concerned not only about the fairness of the level at which standing charges are assessed but about the principle itself. That must have been so because the changes were made well before the consultants' reports were available. The changes were made not simply to the level of the standing charge but to the relationship that it bore to the unit charge. The introduction of the rebate scheme in gas and electricity, rather like the 13th stroke of the clock, is not only unusual in itself but casts a shadow of doubt over what has gone before.
The principle of the rebate is suspicious, but the practice has also been criticised. The North-East gas consumers' council has criticised the rebate scheme as illogical, as a limited form of help to poorer consumers and, indeed, as a scheme which benefits the owners of second homes and stand-by users—in particular those who insist on being connected but do not necessarily make a large use of the supply.
The Minister may also be interested to learn that it has been criticised by Age Concern, which has made

representations to me that a considerable number of old-age pensioners are cutting back on their use of gas and electricity to derive full benefit from the rebate, and may thus be cutting back on supplies they need.
I imagine that in developing the 50–50 scheme the Department and public utilities carefully considered a whole range of schemes. But any such scheme—any attempt to redistribute what are said to be the standing costs of supply by a system of differential tariffs—is bound to have significant advantages for one group and significant disadvantages for another. Of course that will be true, and some poorer consumers will be hit by whatever scheme is implemented.
Nevertheless, I would oppose standing charges even if their abolition meant higher charges for everybody. However, let us consider the facts. If standing charges were abolished—no more messing about with rebates-60 per cent. of all consumers of gas and electricity would pay less and 70 per cent. of old-age pensioners would pay less.
There would be other advantages. The consumer, large and small, would know the cost he would incur because he would have information before using the resource. He could check that his quarterly consumption figures were in line with those of previous years. Above all, the fear would be taken out of charging by public utilities, the fear of the large sudden bill and, particularly in poorer areas, of the sudden summons or of being cut off from a much-needed supply. Those fears would be removed by the abolition of standing charges.
I do not decry the usefulness of the reports that have been commissioned. The Price Waterhouse report concluded:
The net effect of adjusting for the matters described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above"—
that is, the recommendations about transferring various costs between the standing and unit charges—
is to reduce the amount which, in our opinion, should be recovered through the standing charge.
The Deloitte's report concluded similarly:
We consider that there is significant scope for gradually reducing the costs underlying the Standing Charge.
I urge the Government, therefore, to swallow the principle underlying the standing charge. It would take time to remove it completely, but that should not be impossible in the lifetime of a Government. I accept that some residual costs would remain; it is only right and proper that public utilities should be allowed a connection charge. Indeed, I see no objection in principle to a minimum charge for the minimum consumption of a particular resource. But everything else should be put back into the unit charge.
Let us consider what is not in the unit charge and what is presently in the standing charge: metering, the sending out of accounts, the replacement of supply, the cost of meter reading and the armies of people, vans and trucks employed by British Gas, electricity boards and water authorities.
I hope that the Minister will say that he has been through the two accountants' reports and has looked at the significant reductions which they believe are possible in the elements that constitute the standing charge. There is no reason why the efficiencies perceived could not be achieved and brought into effect to help us work towards the gradual abolition of the standing charge.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The issue of standing charges is of particular importance for my constituents, about 27 per cent. of whom are of pensionable age, which is considerably higher than the national average of 17·7 per cent. I am sure that other hon. Members have found that the elderly in particular feel that standing charges are an unfair burden on them.
At first sight it seems a very un-Conservative charge in that there is no reward for thrift. In a way it is quite the contrary: the more frugal one is with gas and electricity, the higher the proportion of one's bill which will constitute the standing charge. It is therefore vital that the public should understand what the charges are for and what steps the Government have taken to mitigate their effect on the elderly and those on low incomes.
I have no doubt that, despite their unpopularity, standing charges are a proper ingredient of gas and electricity bills. Apart from the cost of the commodity itself, there must be provision for providing the commodity in the first place; and it costs as much to maintain the supply to a household which consumes a little as to a household which consumes a great deal. Nevertheless, there is a feeling in many quarters, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), that standing charges should be abolished.
The question is whether, if we did that, it would work. There have been a number of studies over the years into that point, and I recall one that concluded that there was a sound case for a tariff structure that incorporated standing charges. The foreword put it succinctly when it concluded:
After considering the Group's Report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities … by way of alternatives … offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills.
That foreword was written by the former right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and the report had been commissioned by the then Labour Government.
It can therefore be said that there has been a consensus up to now on both sides of the House about the principle of having standing charges. That is hardly surprising, for if standing charges were abolished and a charge added to the unit cost, the unit cost for each industry would, it has been estimated, increase by about 15 per cent. That in turn would mean an increase in the bills of about 40 per cent. of electricity and gas consumers. Of those, about 1 million would be households with a pensioner at their head and about 350,000 of those people would be classified as poor; and about 500,000 households that would suffer would have incomes of up to or about the supplementary benefit level.
Against that scenario it is hardly surprising that a 1976 review concluded that the best way of helping poor consumers was through DHSS grants towards the cost of fuel bills. Again, it is hardly surprising that the Conservative Government have been spending more in real terms on help with fuel bills than ever before.
Given the help that the Government had given, I was concerned to find in my general election campaign that many people were unaware that the gas and electricity industries had taken up a suggestion made by the Government in 1982 and introduced a scheme by which standing charges could not amount to more than 50 per cent. of anybody's bill.
The reason for that reform was the understandable feeling of outrage in particular on the part of the poor and elderly who, having economised, were still finding that the standing charge represented all too great a proportion of the bill. That reform, introduced in 1983, has been estimated as benefiting up to 3 million consumers, about half of them pensioners. Therefore, while I should like to think that we could move towards the abolition of standing charges, they will probably have to remain for the foreseeable future. However, there must be a rigorous and constant review of the effect that the charges have on the poor and the elderly. The factor that most benefits those sectors of the community is stable fuel prices, and we are now moving towards a stage at which fuel prices should not be beyond the rate of inflation. That will benefit especially the poor and the elderly—those sectors of the community about which we are most concerned when we talk about standing charges.
It would be a mistake, and ultimately of no service to those whom we are trying to protect, to suggest that there is a realistic alternative to financing the gas and electricity industries, other than by standing charges. It seems that all the options would cause more hardship and unfairness to the sectors of society that we want most to protect.
When I have explained the reasoning behind standing charges, what the Government have done by way of the rebate and by making people aware of what will be done to provide help in meeting fuel bills, it is grudgingly admitted that there is no alternative to standing charges. I think that the answer lies in stating that argument with considerable force whenever we meet counter arguments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) for not recognising him. I am going through a learning curve, like those who were elected to this place for the first time in June.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I can claim, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I recognise a regional colleague, if not a political one. As the House knows, I do not have many political colleagues in my region.
Despite what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) says, I do not think that any principle can be attached to standing charges. I understand that standing charges would have to be doubled or trebled if we 'were to charge for electricity and gas on the basis of the costs incurred, which would enable the charge per unit to be greatly reduced. That would certainly be so for gas, but perhaps it would be less so for electricity. If no fundamental principle is attached to how the bill is made up, I can see no great case for defending standing charges. If that is so, the standing charge should reflect the real cost of providing gas, for example.
I have always had a great deal of time for the minimum charge argument, not least because of second home and summer-let problems, of which I am perhaps more aware in the area which I represent than are some hon. Members. For about six months of the year, 5 or 6 per cent. of the house owners in my constituency will make no contribution to the cost of providing gas and electricity services. That seems crazy when those who own second homes or who enter into summer lets are not the first to come to mind when one turns to the poorest and most hard pressed, who find the greatest difficulty in paying their gas and electricity bills. A minimum charge could overcome


some of the difficulties while offering the advantage to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) referred. Only a small fraction of consumers would use fewer units than those which produce the minimum charge. That would certainly be so for full occupancy of a home.
The standing charge argument has enabled parliamentarians of all colours to avoid the real problem. During the winter months many of our constituents—the problem may be more acute in Scotland than in the area which I represent, but this is a real problem in Truro—do not have sufficient incomes to enable them to warm their draughty houses. They find that it is not possible to do so at a realistic cost. The Government's continual praise of themselves for what they allow claimants to obtain through the DHSS system is somewhat exaggerated and does not solve the problem. We are all familiar with the old problem which turns on someone who has £2,000 in the bank and who wishes to make a claim for supplementary benefit to help him meet his heating costs. The basic capital rule precludes such a person from receiving supplementary benefit payments.
If we wish to do something to help those who are experiencing difficulty in meeting their heating bills—they may be unable to afford them, or they may be economising to their own physical disadvantage so that they can manage to meet the bill—we must face the reality that the solution will cost money and that the House will have to vote it. I understand that that is not a popular view to express in current circumstances.
The water authority in the area which I represent reviews its charges annually. I do not complain about that, but it seems endlessly to increase its standing charge, which proportionately is increased by more than any other section of the charge. I have said to the chairman of the authority, Mr. Len Hill, "You are skewing the bill away from the wealthy who own the large and glorious houses to those who live in small two-up, two-down terraced cottages." He admits that that is true. What is the logic in such a policy? What is the rationale behind that approach?
The rate bill for my personal home is slightly more than £300 a year, but the water charges are £110. That gives the House an idea of the significance of water charges in my region. It is not possible to claim a rebate for water charges, and charges are being skewed to disadvantage those with limited means. Surely a minimum charge would be easier to administer than the 50–50 arrangement.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: At what level could it be fixed?

Mr. Penhaligon: That question is not for me to answer. It is not for me to say what the standing charge should be.

Mr. Rowlands: On what basis would a minimum charge be determined?

Mr. Penhaligon: There are various criteria, including the realistic standing charge irrespective of whether the service is used. If that proved to be too high, it could be reduced with intelligence and decorum. I cannot see any rationale in allowing many householders to make no contribution to the maintenance of gas and electricity systems when others who are worse off, are having to

make larger contributions. That is the result of the concession that is offered to the wealthy. I cannot see the logic in that approach and, knowing the Minister as well as I do, I suspect that he cannot either. Of course, his brief might insist that he says something else when he replies to the debate.
I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House have great sympathy with constituents who experience difficulties with their heating bills, especially the standing charges. If the House genuinely wants to do something to alleviate the problem for those who are embarrassed by their heating bills, it will have to spend more money. I suspect that there is no other solution. It will make only a marginal contribution to solving the problem by playing around with standing charges. The Government do not have as good a record on standing charges as they would have us believe. I plead on behalf of those whose incomes or savings mean that they are just above the qualifying level for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) for raising this issue. It exercises the minds of more constituents than the number of hon. Members present would imply.
The standing charge is an anachronism. Either it is a charge for a service that was provided many years ago and has been paid for many times over — the charge for connection of a house to the main—or it is a charge for the use of a utility service in which case, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said, it is no charge at all. However, there are problems. The abolition of standing charges would favour second-home owners. There is a danger that abolition would lead to higher unit charges. If so, that would lead to larger, not smaller, bills for the least well off.
The Government have an honourable record on standing charges and have made some inroads into their injustices. I should like standing charges to be abolished, but not at the expense of those who are most at risk. I do not believe that the 33 per cent. of my constituents who are over retirement age would thank any Government who replaced one charge with a higher charge. I should like standing charges to be abolished but only if it does not lead directly to higher charges on those who can least afford them.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) spoke about his philosophy on taxation. I shall draw attention to some aspects of taxation that he entirely forgot to mention—taxation on British Gas and other forms of energy. The hon. Gentleman failed to complete his equation.
Anyone who gets into the mire of detail on standing charges is unlikely to get out of it easily. If one reads the Price Waterhouse report and the rest, one is drawn into pitching one relatively poor consumer against another. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) mentioned that. The House should resist that temptation. If it does not, it should recognise what it is doing and say so to each of those consumers.
When one reads the Price Waterhouse report and considers the systems of analysis that were imposed on British Gas one discovers that it is being argued that poor


prepayment meter consumers, rather than the credit consumers, should pay more. I cannot speak for other hon. Members but it is my experience that prepayment meter consumers tend to be at the poorest end of the scale. They are not necessarily old-age pensioners, but tend to be families on supplementary benefit who cannot cope with other bills. The prepayment meter is often the consequence of other financial and social problems.
The reports and the analyses lead us to the mire of agreeing with a bunch of accountants who say, "If we balance the relative costs and discover that there is cross-subsidisation, we should transfer a portion of that cost from the credit consumer to the pre-payment meter consumer". The reports are characteristic of the Government's attitude to the subject. We should resist the idea of pitching one relatively poor consumer against another.
I have been the Opposition spokesman on this subject for about three years. I have witnessed the issue of standing charges growing at Question Time. That is little wonder. I shall take gas charges as an illustration. The hon. Member for Darlington said that there has been a 600 per cent. increase in standing charges since 1977. From April 1981 to October 1982, there has been a 40 per cent. increase in standing charges for gas consumers. However, that does not describe the amount of money that is involved. In 1981, standing charges on gas consumers raised about £387 million. I understand that British Gas now raises more than £500 million. Those figures are based on my understanding of the Price Waterhouse report. It is not the easiest thing to read, and I am happy to be corrected. I calculate that gas consumers are paying an extra £120 million a year in standing charges. British Gas, like other suppliers of energy, has increased its standing charges to meet the cost of its operations for the year. Even then, I understand that there is a discrepancy of a mere £77 million between the standard charge costs that the industry claims and what British Gas collects in standing charges.
I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that the system is becoming unhinged and that there is no direct relationship between the costs that are claimed to be represented by standing charges and what is collected in standing charges. When one discounts that argument one becomes involved in an argument about where the balance Lies and how much should be collected in standing charges as opposed to unit costs.
Although we are discussing increases in standing charges we must consider price increases. As the Minister admitted during Question Time today, gas prices have increased by 112 per cent. since 1979. Irrespective of what is happening to standing charges, gas consumers are paying 112 per cent. more than they paid in 1979.
The hon. Member for Darlington said that he believed —I think that I caught his words—that charges, whether for electricity or gas, ought to reflect inflation. I remind him that this Government ruled that gas prices had to go up in general, irrespective of standing charges, by 10 per cent. over the rate of inflation during the past three years. Gas consumers have had to face a vicious double problem. They have been faced with an increase in standing charges, based on cost analysis, to reflect related costs. On top of that, as a result of Government policy, there has been a deliberate increase of gas prices to all consumers

of 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation every year for three years. The result has been an incredible 112 per cent. increase over 1979.
One can, understand all the arguments about consumption, about relating costs to consumption and standing charges to the cost of services to the consumer. However, I should like to bring another set of figures into the argument. They relate to British Gas.
The hon. Member for Darlington does not believe in direct taxation. He believes that we should have indirect taxation. Let us consider what taxes have been imposed on gas consumers not only through consumption or through standing charges but through the direct tax claimed from British Gas by the Government.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Government's attitude towards the taxation of British gas. The Government will claim £541 million from British Gas in 1982–83 as a result of the gas levy. That sum is greater than the total amount collected by British Gas from consumers through standing charges. That is only a part of it. As the White Paper on Government expenditure of February 1983 points out, British Gas made an operating profit of £500 million this year. On top of that, the Government managed to claim over £540 million in gas levy. The Government have managed to claim from British Gas in one year a sum greater than that which British Gas has managed to collect in standing charges from all its consumers, whether wealthy or poor, pensioners, average working families or large families.

Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Member is not assuming that had I been in this House at the time when the levy was instituted I would necessarily have supported the Government.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful for the hon. Member's prospective support. I hope that there will be a re-run one day and that I shall see the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby. I argued this case from the Dispatch Box 18 months ago. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
It is not only £540 million a year that is to be claimed from British Gas. There is another £952 million in taxation payments in 1982–83 to 1985–86. I refer to paragraph 28 of part 3 of the White Paper on public expenditure. In other words, one nationalised energy industry, British Gas, will pay £3,089 million to the Government in tax in the three-year period 1982–83 to 1985–86.
Before the House understandably gets bogged down in arguments about whether we should have a minimum charge or abolish standing charges, about whether we should switch to unit costs or—as the Price Waterhouse report suggests—alter the relationship of the cost as between credit and prepayment consumers, we must ask what the point and purpose is of raising such huge sums of money in taxation from BGC if, as a result, there is an additional cost in standing charges or an increase in gas prices over and above that which is necessary or demanded. Before the Minister answers any other questions, he must answer that point. Let him defend that.
Holding such debates is like opening a can of worms. For example, I have a very good Welsh point to make. In its detailed analysis of costs and so on, the Price Waterhouse report mentioned the regional differences in such charges and, in paragraph 83, concluded:
Similar arguments apply to the calculation of standing charges for prepayment meters. For example, the cost recoverable in the standing charge for Wales region"—


part of which I represent—
are less than any other region, and yet it is included in the General Zone which has the highest standing charge.
I have tried to make some sense of that. Stripped down, the report apparently says that when all these incredible analyses are taken into account, together with the question of BGC's efficiency in every region, the Welsh region is ostensibly a low-cost area which nevertheless has to bear a high basic standard charge. I hope that the Minister will confirm that I have understood that correctly. If that is so, many other arguments are turned on their head.
The hon. Member for Truro tried to link such arguments to water charges. We Welshmen understand the argument about water charges better than do those from the south-west. My constituents have higher water charges than almost everyone else in the country. However, we are told that one reason for having to bear such costs—an argument that we do not agree with—is that we must suffer the exceptional costs of our Principality. We are told that it is all about self-financing and the relative costs of our water authority area. We are also told that the last thing that we should do is to try to have any form of national cost equalisation. In part, such equalisation once existed, but we now find ourselves arguing for it against an intransigent Government.
If I have understood paragraph 83 correctly, although our costs in relation to standing charges are some of the lowest, the charge itself is classified as one of the highest. There must be some consistency of attitude. We probably cannot abolish the standing charge for the reasons that have been given. There is a case for having a basic set of costs that are borne by all consumers irrespective of consumption, based on the idea that a set of services is provided in one form or another. If one tried to transfer all the costs of the services to the consumer through the unit cost, or if a consumer had to bear the full cost of something going wrong with his service, many angry comments would still be made on both sides of the House about the additional instant burdens falling on constituents, whether they be elderly or members of a working family. There is no easy answer. We are in a mire, and valid questions arise from those reports and our debates, which must be answered.
The foremost question to be answered is the level at which to pitch charges for energy. If one uses gas costs, prices, charges and tariffs as a form of taxation, as the Government have done by excessively increasing prices to the domestic gas consumer and by imposing a gratuitous gas levy on British Gas, the charge to answer is greater than other dilemmas with which we are grappling.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) struck a chord with hon. Members on both sides of the House when he introduced the debate. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the matter can be described as a can of worms or a Pandora's Box. The more one observes the case for detailed examination of standing charges and considers the effects on different consumers, the more one is drawn to the conclusion that any small-scale tinkering with the standing charge will disproportionately affect a large

group of people but be proportionately beneficial to a small group, or vice versa. It is not easy to offer a delicate thread of new understanding.
That does not mean that we should seek to hide the rationale for the standing charge system in the several industries that have been discussed tonight. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that the rationale for standing charges in the water industry, where the basic method of direct charging is on a rateable value basis, is different from that in British Telecom, where a connection or standing charge is made in relation to a network communication system, which at any time of the day or night connects different parts of the world at the turn of a dial. Those concepts are different, yet there is a general connection between them, which I shall endeavour to make clear to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington set out, as was made clear by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, to equate standing charges with taxation, or at least to imply that we were dealing with what is clearly an impost and, therefore, should be considered in such a way as would lead us to eliminate the principle of the standing charge. As he said, we should swallow the principle and get back to a more orthodox form of charging.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) took an opposite view and gave a realistic appraisal of the problems involved in doing that. He suggested that it would be very useful if we maintained pressure by whatever means we could to reduce the price of fuel, especially for the energy industry, and to reduce prices in the water and telecommunications industries to ease the burden on large and small consumers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) put forward a perfectly clear view on the problem and we must bear it in mind. Whatever view we take about individual cases in our constituencies, we return, as did the hon. Member for Truro, to the conclusion that the question must be approached either from an entirely different principle, such as the minimum charge that he advocated, or through various forms of discrimination.
We must always remind ourselves that the statutory background to almost all those industries, including the Water Act 1983, with which the hon. Member for Truro was involved last year, provided in some sections that nondiscriminatory policies must be observed. Section 30 of the Water Act 1973 provided that a non-discriminatory pricing policy should be observed. We must be careful within the general context of the development of standing charges.
I should state why the utilities make standing charges. No one who considers the business involved can deny that the industries incur some costs in supplying consumers, whatever their consumption might be. In the water, telecommunications, gas and electricity industries there has been much investment in hardware and in the method of distribution—especially in the water industry, where distribution accounts for a high proportion of costs—to ensure that the service is on call to everyone 24 hours a day at the turn of a tap or the flick of a switch. Such availability of supply requires substantial resources, however little or much the consumer uses. Those costs are, traditionally, met by standing charges, so I do not accept my hon. Friend's argument—

Mr. Penhaligon: The Minister's comment is accurate, but the point made by constituents is that what he has described is no different from the experience of Tesco's or any other services provided to the population. They all have standing charges to enable them to open their doors on Monday morning, but one is not expected to pay half a crown, or whatever the modern equivalent is, to enter the store.

Mr. Shaw: The more correct analogy would be to have Tesco in one's basement 24 hours a day, available for the individual consumer to buy a quarter of tea or 15 tins of pineapples. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that problem.

Mr. Fallon: Perhaps I could supply a slightly more suitable analogy, which is that of petrol station forecourts, which are open 24 hours a day, but where the customer is not expected to pay a standing charge before he enters.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is not correct to say that they are all open 24 hours a day. Some stations have 24-hour services, but the national availability of petrol stations providing a 24-hour service cannot be equated with the public utilities. We are not dealing with tax, nor with an arbitrary measure to boost industries' revenue, although I fully recognise that on some occasions that may have happened. We are dealing with a payment for connection to a source or supply.
Standing charges have been a feature of such businesses since long before nationalisation. I do not know whether my hon. Friends will find it a helpful observation, but standing charges have featured in the electricity tariff since before the start of this century and almost back to the beginning of public supply. There are genuine costs underlying the charges, and the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge were correct.
Standing charges in the gas and electricity industries amount to £500 million each a year. Telephone rentals provide British Telecom with more than £800 million a year, and the water industry receives about £200 million in standing charges. However, the industries have substantial costs which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree cannot bit written off. The question is how they can be recovered more sensibly.
The effects of abolishing standing charges have featured in the debate. It is proper to ask whether costs are being recovered correctly or whether tariff restructuring, exemptions, or the minimum charge policy suggested by the hon. Member for Truro could be introduced. Should there be special treatment for some groups, and would it not be more beneficial to poor consumers to recover charges in a different way?
In recent years that has been discussed by Governments of both persuasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the thorough study that was published in 1976 when the then right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was in charge of energy tariffs. The study concluded that reorganising tariffs was not an effective way to help poorer consumers. Last year the Government undertook to re-examine the impact of gas and electricity standing charges on disadvantaged consumers, including the elderly. It was a careful examination of the consequences of a number of alternative tariff structures.
I shall spell out some of those consequences which would flow from abolishing standing charges and redistributing the costs of unit rates. If, for example, standing charges on gas and electricity were abolished, unit rates would increase by about 15 per cent. Such a measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said, would increase the annual bills of at least 1 million pensioners, over 350,000 poorer pensioner households and 500,000 households with incomes up to or around supplementary benefit levels. It would increase al so the bills of those who face large bills through no fault of their own—those who have special heating needs, the sick, families with young children and those in all-electric houses or houses without alternative energy sources.
By contrast, those who would benefit from such a measure would in general do so by small amounts—pence each week—but those who did not benefit could face bills which increased by pounds each week. The overall effect would be a straight subsidy paid by those who already face larger bills in favour of those who face small bills and would not relate to how well off the donors or recipients were.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Truro, that costs are always attached to any offsetting of high charges on the poorer consumers. Governments of both persuasions have made little secret of that. I do not entirely claim credit for what is done by the Government to provide assistance for the poor, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that these large sums are not an excuse for avoiding the argument.
What would happen if, as has been suggested, we abolished standing charges for pensioners? My predecessor, now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, met pensioners' representatives more than once. We are in favour of helping pensioners, but the cost would be about £300 million per annum for gas and electricity alone. The distribution of benefit which would result would be neither equitable nor related to need. The amount of assistance provided would depend upon the fuels used by the households, and no benefit would go to those who were not registered consumers or tenants. The measure would lead to increases in the bills of other poor consumers. If the Exchequer met the cost, that would use up most of the resources being used to provide direct assistance with fuel bills to those most in need. This year over £350 million will be given in direct assistance to people who have difficulty in meeting fuel bills.
Some of the organisations which have the elderly and pensioners in their charge were far from persuaded that this tariff-juggling arrangement was the answer to the problems of people with low incomes. Last year a paper put out by the Electricity Consumers' Council stated:
It is clear that moves to abolish or reduce the standing charge would penalise some poor consumers who are operating on tight budgets.
The same arguments would apply to standing charges for the water industry or telephones. British Telecom must maintain exchange equipment and sophisticated networks. The water authorities are responsible for the development of all kinds of resources—the water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, the control of pollution, drainage, sea defences, fisheries and so on. About 99 per cent. of households receive a water supply and 96 per cent. are connected to mains sewers. If we removed the standing charges we would have to pay for the large structures of the water industry and British Telecom.
Water authorities have particular difficulties with charges, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro. The National Water Council has been studying this problem and, as he knows, there has been some move towards a metered system where it seems to be appropriate. However, as he knows well, and has argued before me on an Adjournment debate, that system does not apply fairly in areas that have a low rateable value. Nevertheless, the principle of buying water through metering should be applied as widely as can be justified by rateable value.
I wish to deal with independent examinations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned. They have been undertaken by the Government as a matter of priority because we accept that standing charges should be studied thoroughly in relation to the legislative framework — the taxation framework, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said — and because we are dealing with monopoly suppliers. One of the crucial factors which the Government take into account more often than the hon. Gentleman does is the monopoly power of the utilities in the market place, which can often lead to a distortion of the pricing system, be it the standing charge mechanism or the unit price system. Last autumn we asked two independent bodies to examine the gas and electricity industries to see whether standing charges were related properly to costs and whether there was scope for improvement in efficiency to cut those costs. The consultants reported earlier this year, and copies of their reports are available in the Library for hon. Members to assess. Hon. Members taking part in the debate have clearly done just that.
The consultants endorsed the principle of standing charges. In its report on the British Gas Corporation, Price Waterhouse said:
Indeed, we consider that in comparison to the alternative tariff systems which we have reviewed, the present two-part system operated by BGC most accurately reflects the costs imposed by the consumer on the system and should continue to be used by the Corporation.
A similar conclusion was drawn by Deloitte's on the area electricity boards.
However, Deloitte's reports on efficiency in the two industries made recommendations to help them contain their costs for the future benefit of all consumers. Deloitte's made recommendations about BGC that could lead to the elimination of more than £30 million worth of costs over the next five years. With electricity too, it identified substantial possibilities for the adoption of the best practice by different boards which could hold out the opportunity for even greater savings.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that I and my colleagues at the Department of Energy will go through these reports with a fine toothed comb and will put pressure upon the supply industries to ensure that they apply the lessons which the consultants have analysed in their reports.
Judging by the initial responses, the utilities are fully aware that, where they can be shown to have opportunities for greater efficiency and rationalisation of tariff structure or the application of tariffs, improvements should first be made in those areas. The answer to this problem is to be found in the reduction of costs.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister answer the points that we have raised about the taxation of the British Gas Corporation? The £13 million over five years should be compared with the £2 billion that he will cream off the British Gas Corporation in gas levy. If he handed back just a proportion of that and effected some of the efficiencies which he states will pressurise the British Gas Corporation, those gas consumers who face standing charges would be greater beneficiaries. Will he comment upon the regional differences that were mentioned in these reports?

Mr. Shaw: I shall not enter into a debate with the hon. Gentleman on the taxation policies on British Gas, because he knows that that is a much wider issue than standing charges.
He would be the first to recognise that to use the revenue that we have been discussing as an alternative benefit for disadvantaged pensioners is a legitimate way for the Government to set about framing their policy on taxation where this can be shown to be justified. There is little doubt that the corporation benefits from having monopoly control over the supply of gas, and it is sensible to seek some financial advantage from that which can be used for revenue purposes, and not least for those facing higher fuel charges.
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of his second point. My understanding is that the report that Price Waterhouse made on the three British Gas Corporation zones—I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the report was not national, but looked at three zones—found that the different levels of standing charges between the three zones did not correspond with the levels of cost within the component regions of the zone. It is that anomaly to which Price Waterhouse has drawn the attention of the corporation. That probably accounts for the peculiarities in Wales to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There may be room for the transfer of some regions from one zone to another for standing charge purposes, or the differentiation might be dropped altogether and a national standing charge adopted. That was the recommendation made by Price Waterhouse and I am sure that this, among its other recommendations, will be studied.
I return now to the point that I was seeking to make on the pressure to reduce costs and ultimately therefore to give greater efficiency to the consumer. The theme of the debate has been that when we are dealing with a monopoly practice we must from time to time examine it with great care to see that the consumer is getting fair value for money. There can be, and we shall continue to offer, support for fuel charges for those who are unable to meet them. The system devised under the social security mechanism is the best and most equitable system that we can devise. It is also available through the social security system, to those who find themselves unable to pay their water bills.

Mr. Penhaligon: Why no rebate?

Mr. Shaw: There is no rebate because with water charges we are dealing with a charge that has been accumulated for a service already delivered. It is quite the best way to deal with this through a social security benefit for those who cannot meet the bills rather than through a rebate.
We must ensure that the industries ate as efficient as we can make them. The greatest benefits to all consumers are to be gained, not by juggling with tariffs, but by real increases in the efficiency with which our energy is supplied, and real reductions in its costs. I am sure that hon. Members will have noted that the stability that we have recently had in electricity prices over 1982 and 1983 gives the greatest confidence that we can find some end to the spiralling charge that most consumers face for all these industries. It is the prospect of increased stability in fuel prices in general that will provide most encouragement to consumers. That is the way in which we shall proceed.

Ethiopia

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter of aid from this country to Ethiopia. At the moment, the people of Ethiopia are facing one of the worst crises that the country has ever faced because of drought and distress. We talk and grumble about the weather, but it is rarely that many of us are seriously at risk as a result of the vagaries of the weather. However, for those who live in much of Africa, and particularly in the areas around the Sahara, it is not just the climate but the weather within it that may put many at grave risk. It is almost the vagaries of the day-to-day weather that decide whether they live or die. The late arrival or non-arrival of rainfall may ruin the entire harvest and leave the people at grave risk.
Of the countries around the Sahara the one that concerns me most now is Ethiopia. From 1970 to 1973, it suffered a major drought, and hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the drought and the internal conflict in the country at that time. It appears that the failure of rainfall in the past 18 months has been almost as serious as it was 10 years ago, and a very large number of people are now at risk.
Members will have heard many accounts from people who have visited the drought-stricken areas and seen films and photographs of the distress there. We now know that the worst affected areas are the four northern areas of Ethiopia — Gondar, Wollo, Tigre and Eritrea. The Ethiopian Government estimate that between 3 million and 4 million people are at risk in those regions and that 2 million of them are probably dependent on emergency aid.
Not only are people at immediate risk of starvation. The effects of drought are felt for a long time afterwards. Michael Cross made the point effectively in a well set out article in the New Scientist of 17 March. He said:
Even if the food does arrive, even if Ethiopia's overstretched infrastructure can manage to distribute it, the drought of 1982 will have dealt a devastating blow to the country's hopes of feeding itself.
One of the real achievements of the revolutionary government has been to reform land-ownership, in theory giving everyone the right to farm. With the technical assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organisation it has begun digging terraces, and building dams to stop its topsoil disappearing. The drought has already set one project, a national food reserve, back by at least a year. The displacement of tens of thousands of people will make other development projects impossible.
Even if the rains come this year, they will do the people of Gondar no good. The dirt roads will turn into torrents, stopping the relief trucks from getting through. The inevitable epidemics will take their toll in the camps. And back on the farms of the refugees, the rain will further erode a topsoil without crops to hold it together. It will add to the 5 million hectares of agricultural land already lost to soil erosion.
Meanwhile, the people of Gondar, Wollo, Tigre and Eritrea sit in their shelters, waiting for an indifferent world to decide their fate.
I could quote many mote magazine and newspaper articles describing the current distress in Ethiopia. To give balance, I should make it clear that I have received information not only from the Ethiopian Government but from groups in Ethiopia which oppose that Government — notably the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. The EPLF estimates that in the northern province of Eritrea in the Sahel region almost one third of the population, or


about 82,000 people, are now at risk and that in the past 12 months one in 10 of them has probably died due to the drought and the resulting famine.
The problem for these areas of Ethiopia is the seasonal pattern of the rainfall. In the lowland areas, most of the rain falls in what we would describe as the winter months from October to March. That rainfall should produce just enough vegetation for animals to survive throughout the year. Last year, the rainfall between October and March was deficient in almost all those areas. That has left major problems not just for the people's survival this year, but in terms of depletion of animal stocks for many years to come.
In the upland areas, the rainfall pattern is slightly different. The main rainy season is supposed to be from June until the end of September, supplemented by a smaller amount of rain between February and March or April. Last year, for much of that area the main period of rainfall was deficient. The total volume was less than was necessary. In many instances the rain came too late—in some areas too early—to fit in with sowing patterns.
By the time of the harvest in October, it was clear to many people that there would be a food shortage. Even the smaller rainy season failed. The rain did not occur in sufficient quantity and in some instances came at the wrong time. As a result, the problem was compounded. Many of the crops that should now be growing well in anticipation of a good harvest this autumn were not planted. It appears that once again the rainfall will be too little. It may be that it will come later, but so far it is nothing like sufficient.
What information do the Government have about potential rainfall in Ethiopia this year? Such information could determine the prospects for a good harvest this autumn and a return to near-normality. It could equally prepare the people of Ethiopia for a deficient harvest. What has already been a difficult and disastrous 12 months could be extended for another 12 months, and reserves that have carried the country through so far may well be inadequate.
As well as the rain shortage and inadequate crops, Ethiopia suffers from its difficult terrain. Much of the area worst affected is difficult to traverse. Roads are almost non-existent and it is difficult to get from one area to another. As a result, there may well be a food surplus in one part and a major food shortage a relatively short distance away.
It is also worth remembering that Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. The people are almost always undernourished and in poor health. Therefore, they are particularly vulnerable if there is a shortfall in the harvest. It is also sad that the country receives less aid than almost any other country in the Third world. Recent estimates suggest that per head of population the aid is about $8, whereas the average for the Third world is about $22.
It is also unfortunate that in recent years most of Ethiopia's aid has come from eastern Europe, which has not had a grain surplus. As a result, Ethiopia has received small amounts of grain from countries that have been most generous in giving other forms of aid.
Ethiopia has no natural links with advanced countries of Europe as most of it was not occupied by a colonial power. It is therefore more difficult to remind people in

the advanced world of its needs. But even if Ethiopia has not had any of the benefits of a lingering European conscience, it has been left with many ex-colonial legacies. It is particularly unfortunate that the country is still torn by internal strife. We must try to ensure that that is reduced, because it is clear that famine is associated with the tragic effects of that internal unrest.
Such unrest makes it harder for aid to get in and to be distributed. Unfortunately, those who become involved in the political arguments become propagandists and argue that aid should be given in one direction but not in another. Both sides in that struggle try to blacken each other's reputation, and in many ways discourage individuals and Government organisations from giving aid.
I find it distressing that some people go around the capitals of Europe, probably dining and wining liberally, spreading rumour and innuendo about the way aid is distributed within Ethiopia. The evidence from the relief organisations and voluntary charities is that the vast majority of aid gets through and is being used properly. Those who decry the way in which the aid is spent should go to Ethiopia and see the position for themselves. They would then admit that most of the aid is being put to good use.
I plead with the Government to do everything that they can to bring about negotiations between the liberation movements in Eritrea and Tigre and the Ethiopian Government. That is one of the central elements in bringing immediate relief to the famine and long-term relief to the people. We must persuade those groups to talk rather than to fight. It should not be impossible for other countries to bring the two sides together to fashion a compromise. Some system of local autonomy within a federal state is a possible solution.
Ethiopia cannot be expected, for obvious strategic reasons, to give up its claims to either Tigre or Eritrea. Equally, the independence movements within those regions cannot be annihilated. If peace is to be achieved, it must be through compromise. If there is ever to be economic viability and if the people are to be free of the fear of famine and hunger, there must be peace within the area. That must be achieved by co-operation, and there must be an end to the conflict. I appeal to the Government to use their good offices to persuade the countries of the world to bring pressure on both sides in Ethiopia to negotiate and to restore an established peace.
The Government must increase the amount of aid to Ethiopia, both directly and through the relief agencies—especially the Save the Children fund and Oxfam, which have workers there. The Government should press the European Community to give more aid and the United Nations to pay more attention to the problem.
I was distressed to read an article in The Times on 15 July that suggested that, despite all the pleas and information available about the scale of the disaster, aid was not forthcoming in anything like the amount required. The headline was
Ethiopia aid appeal falls on deaf ears
and the article stated:
The response to international aid appeals on behalf of some four million people suffering from the effects of drought in northern Ethiopia has so far been unsatisfactory, Mr. Dawit Wolde Giorgis, the Ethiopian relief commissioner, said yesterday in Geneva.
About 900,000 tons of grain was needed for an 18-month emergency period but only 90,000 tons has as yet been offered after the March appeal by the UN Disaster Relief Office. Fifty


four-wheel-drive lorries had been requested, but only spare parts for existing vehicles were forthcoming accompanied by a multinational maintenance team.
It is important to increase the amount of aid and to ensure that it gets through.
The Government made two announcements earlier this year about additional aid from Britain and the additional aid being allocated from agencies to which Britain contributes. I ask the Minister to do more, especially on transport. Within the aid that he announced there was some help with transport, but it is a major problem. Can we supply more Land Rovers and other four-wheel vehicles so that the food aid can get through to the areas for which it is intended?
I also stress to the Minister that one of the major problems in Ethiopia is the fact that much aid must be transported by air and it has only an ancient fleet of DC3s, which is literally falling to pieces and for which it is increasingly difficult to get spares. If the problems within the country are to be overcome, someone must consider helping it to purchase newer and more efficient planes which can move aid within the country.
It also appears from the Save the Children fund that there is considerable need for medicines and similar facilities. We must get out and tell the world the extent of the tragedy, particularly those problems which will ensue if no rain falls in August and September. The country will have major problems for another 12 months.
We must look at the major problems of Ethiopia's financial credit. It appears to be badly in debt to eastern Europe. We should be saying firmly that if the Ethiopian Government and the liberation groups in Tigre and Eritrea can get together and patch up a lasting peace, world reconstruction aid should be available to them, particularly for rebuilding roads that have been destroyed, and the railway line in Eritrea that goes from Massawa to Asmara and Karen, which has been completely destroyed in the fighting, which would be extremely useful for transporting aid. With small investments, the water supply could be improved and wells and irrigation systems developed. The country has a considerable agricultural potential. Many countries in the Third world that suffer problems are overpopulated but, with good agriculture management, it ought to be possible to make Ethiopia self-sufficient in food. Therefore, help in land management and similar schemes would be useful.
It is important that we should meet Ethiopia's immediate needs and then look forward to trying to help it out of its long term difficulties. We should help to achieve peace and growth in the area so that it can become self-supporting and able to build up its food reserves as some insurance against drought every 10 or 15 years.
Finally, my constituents and those of other hon. Members should remember every time they grumble about Britain's weather that it puts few people here at risk, whereas in the northern part of Ethiopia some 4 million people are presently close to starvation and completely at the mercy of the weather. We should be giving them far more aid and assistance than we are doing.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am perhaps the Member of this House most recently to have visited Ethiopia, having spent some weeks in Addis Ababa and the surrounding countryside early last year. My wife and I stayed with a friend at the British embassy and

consequently I had ample opportunity to talk to several diplomats based there, not only in our embassy but in others, and to representatives of leading voluntary and United Nations aid organisations.
I have kept in touch since, so that it is as an interested layman that I seek to speak. I hold no brief for the Ethiopian Government or for any particular relief organisation. I just want to make several brief important points which I hope will be of interest to the House.
There is no dispute about the scale of the drought and the magnitude of the tragedy. Half a million Ethiopians are trying to stave off starvation. Nine hundred thousand tonnes of grain are needed for the next 18 months and only one tenth of that has so far been promised. Quite simply, the Ethiopians need help. Ethiopia is the fourth poorest nation in the world and its inhabitants have the shortest life expectancy.
The first point that I want to make as an objective observer—I hope with some force—is that there is no reliable evidence that food aid from the United Kingdom or any other agency or country is being misdirected or abused by the Ethiopians.
I shall deal briefly with the facts and why I believe it necessary for my point to be made again and again and to be understood. The suspicion and accusation of abuse is best exemplified by an article in The Sunday Times on 27 March. The lead front page story was about Ethiopia and described as "Exclusive." It was headed:
Starving babies sold for Soviet arms.
The article, by a reputable journalist, began:
There is mounting evidence that food sent from the west to drought-stricken Ethiopia, is being diverted by the Ethiopian military regime to its army and also to an increasing extent to the Soviet Union to help meet the regime's huge arms bill.
I read on to see what the evidence might be, particularly because when I was in Addis I took every opportunity to ask everyone whom I met about the effectiveness of food aid. Not only members of our embassy in Addis Ababa, but others connected with voluntary organisations and UN agencies agreed that so far as was humanly possibly all aid sent through, got through.
Having heard that from people such as the Canadian ambassador and EC representives, I was surprised to see that headline in The Sunday Times. I was even more surprised when I read the article. The headline suggested aid abuse when the Save the Children fund and other organisations were launching a massive fund-raising appeal. That headline would have considerable effect on the money that they were able to raise.
After reading further into the article, I discovered that it contained not one corroborative fact. Simon Winchester, the author, quoted one anonymous Ethiopian government emigree seeking asylum in Britain and others such as Mary Dines, who is known to be hostile to Ethiopia. He quoted no independent observers. Such articles are manna to those who argue that we should not give aid to African countries because it will be abused, will not reach the right people and will support suppressive regimes. The litany is well known to those who see the western nations as having a role in providing aid and assistance to the Third world.
What do those closest have to say? On 24 March the chairman of the Save the Children fund wrote to The Times saying:
Regardless of the ideological hue of the Ethiopian government, it cannot be held responsible for the current situation which has been caused by two years of almost continuous drought and resultant crop failure … Not even


centrally planned economies can control the weather … It may be said that the response of the Ethiopian Government has been prompt.
In The Times of 12 April this year Dr. Paul Shearn Oxfam's health co-ordinator, said:
After a four-week visit to Ethiopia I found food provided through the EEC in its aid programme is definitely reaching people in the most severely affected areas such as Wollo and Gondar.
The Save the Children fund, the League of Red Cross Societies, EC officials and evidence from the overseas development agency confirms that there is no evidence that food aid has been or is being misdirected. It is as well for the Dergue to appreciate that, when it comes to humanitarian aid, the Soviet Union upon which it is militarily dependent, is the feeblest of allies. If that point is lost on the Dergue it is certainly not lost on the people of Ethiopia.
As one young Ethiopian put it to me, "All we get from the Russians is arms and the writings of Lenin. I cannot feed my younger brothers and sisters on the writings of Lenin." English is still the second language in many schools and many Ethiopians appreciate our contributions. It would be a mistake to write Ethiopia off simply as a Soviet-backed regime. Many Ethiopians want nothing more than to feed their families and to live in peace. Nothing will be gained by writing them off and forcing them to become even more dependent on the Soviets.
I should like to make another point based on my visit to Addis Ababa. As this is a debate on United Kingdom aid to Ethiopia, I pay tribute to the work of the British Council. The library of the British Council in Addis Ababa is manned by one man and some locally engaged staff. It is a phenomenal organisation. Young Ethiopians queue for hours—it is a phenomenal sight—for the doors to open. When all the chairs are taken they sit on the floor to read. Books are read with fervour. For many it is their only access to textbooks. Every penny spent on the British Council is money well spent. The minds of many young Ethiopians are as hungry as their bodies.
What we do as a European Community and as a nation, and what we might do as individuals, we do because there are other human beings, like us, who are starving, who have no other help but us. That we give willingly although Ethiopia is supposedly a pro-Soviet regime is not just a measure of their need, but is, I hope, a measure of our civilisation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Like the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I shall be brief, but I want to put some questions to the Minister in the hope that if he is unable to reply specifically this evening he will give some thought to these matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on having the initiative to introduce this relevant discussion. It is a sad reflection on our times that nature can bestow such havoc on this section of humanity. Even given the tremendous strides that we have made in science and technology, we stand aside almost helpless in the face of this holocaust. I know that there are many in this nation, as has been shown by their response to the various appeals, who would encourage the Minister and the House to try to seek a solution to the problem that is exposed in Ethiopia.
As my hon. Friend said, the rains are still not good. Some farmers who have returned to their land to try to grow crops have been forced to go back to shelters. There is no suggestion that things are improving radically.
The hon. Member for Banbury commented on food aid. I think that it is fair to say that a number of organisations, including Oxfam, are concerned about food aid. I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the evidence of the bottleneck at the port of Assab. We are told that a British ship carrying European Community grain has been sent on to Pakistan and that there is evidence that another has been standing off the port for some weeks unable to unload. If so, it is time we asserted ourselves. None of us would wish to defend that state of affairs, because all of us would regard it as indefensible.
We are told that food is reaching regional capitals, but that often it gets no further. There have been reports of people dying only 50 km from food supplies. If that, too, is so—many people believe that it is—something should be done urgently.
As the two preceding speakers have said, the problems in Ethiopia — apart from the drought — have arisen because wars are taking place. The greatest problems have been in the border areas—the no-man's land between territories held by different factions. Guerrillas have operated within 3 km of Government food dumps. Nobody wants to lose food supplies to the other side and the Red Cross has considered evacuating villages—some with as many as 1,000 people—from the war zones, but this would be a hazardous operation.
A large-scale relief operation will be needed until November. I understand that Oxfam is emphasising that what is happening in Ethiopia is not a total disaster in terms of food aid. The numbers affected by the drought are relatively small compared with the total population—in terms of food aid, not general aid— and Oxfam has cautioned that rushing in more food will not help unless there is the necessary organisation — transport, administration and so on—which is essential if food aid is to be effective.
We are told that it will take more than a year to get over the effects of the drought. There are long-term problems of declining rainfall, deforestation and inadequate transport. Aid is needed to tackle these problems, although the continuing war and political instability make it difficult to implement long-term infrastructure projects.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on the points that I have raised, if only to underline the fact that, in spite of the enormous wealth and energy resources possessed by the universe, it is a sad reflection on us all that such circumstances should exist and that apparently we should be powerless to deal with them.

Mr. Keith Best: The hon. Member for Monklands West (Mr. Clarke) has a considerable interest and expertise in these matters. We listened to him with interest and respect and I hope that he will make many contributions on development issues.
The tragedy that is being played out in Eritrea—the deprivation and death — should be uppermost in our minds until it is overcome. Britain is a civilised country and our poorest people, on whom we rightly concentrate so many resources, are rich compared with the people of the Horn of Africa. It is the responsibility of the whole


world to help in such circumstances, and Britain can be no exception unless we wish to exclude ourselves from the company of civilised states.
The problem we are debating raises the far wider question of the Government's contribution to the United Nations development programme. I asked the Minister for Overseas Development in a written question on 18 July about the maintenance of Government aid to that programme. I asked whether it would be maintained
at the same level in real terms as in 1982 as a minimum commitment".
My right hon. Friend, constrained as he is by the needs of the Treasury and the financial circumstances of the country, replied:
The Government support the United Nations development programme as the central funding and co-ordinating agency for UN technical assistance. They intend to maintain their support for this programme within the constraints resulting from the need to restrict Government expenditure and the pressure of other aid commitments.
For 1983 the United Kingdom contribution to this programme will be £18·5 million, the same as in 1982. I cannot yet say what will be the level of our contribution for 1984."—[Official Report, 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 3.]
We are fortunate in having a document to hand, published this month, entitled "UNDP — The Development Connection: Britain's stake in the United Nations Development Programme". I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that it sets out fairly and accurately the way in which Britain can benefit from exercising what I believe to be its right as a civilised ration in aiding the poorest countries in the world. In many parts of the developing world good projects on the drawing board are waiting and needing to be implemented. They may be projects to help the local population to grow more food, stimulate rural development, increase the purchasing power of villagers, step up the availability of clean water or tap new sources of energy. These projects continue to lie on the drawing board even though the money to implement them may be available.
What holds these projects back? There is often a lack of trained people to manage, supervise and lead the world to ensure that a good idea becomes a reality. In other areas some development projects that are under way are going wrong. Those projects may lack management, good supervision and co-ordination. Imaginative projects that are crucial to the lives of tens of thousands can all too often fail to work if there are missing links in the chain.
Everything is connected in the development effort, and there must he someone to ensure that all the connections are made. Since it began in 1965, the United Nations development programme has been involved in different development projects in more than 150 developing countries and territories. Unfortunately, the programme now faces a crisis. At a time when the demand for its services is as high as ever, its funds are dwindling and have become too low for it to do its job properly. Unlike most other major United Nations agencies, the programme is financed on an entirely voluntary basis. All countries, both developed and developing, contribute voluntarily to the agency. In the past four years, contributions from donor countries have not kept pace with inflation. For 1983 the programme will have virtually the same amount of money to devote to the urgent task of co-ordination as it had in 1979. That means that in real terms the work that it can do will be cut nearly in half. The implications for the developing countries are serious. They have already been severely hit by low commodity prices, rising debt burdens

and protectionism. They now face having many development projects axed because of lack of technical cooperation. Inevitably, the greatest losers will be the poorest.
Britain has cut its contribution to the programme more severely than almost any other major donor country. Yet few countries give more recognition than Britain to the importance of technical co-operation in the development process. It is perhaps especially understandable that Britain should believe so much in what is being achieved in technical developments in developing countries. It is particularly sad, therefore, that Britain's contribution has been cut so substantially.
In many ways the programme was a British creation. It was born in 1965. Its predecessor was the expanded programme of technical assistance, which was formed and shaped by the distinguished British civil servant, the late Sir David Owen.
The expanded programme merged with the United Nations special fund in 1965, and the United Nations development programme was formed. It has accumulated experience in technical co-operation over the years since 1965 and built up a network of 114 offices around the world, each manned by a resident representative and supporting staff. These offices do their best to ensure that local people are involved to the fullest possible extent in decision-making processes and in the management of development projects. About three fifths of the cost of United Nations development projects comes from the Governments of developing countries.
The Brandt report, which has been debated fully in the House and throughout the world, had this to say in February 1983 about the development programme:
Another set of aid channels presently starved of funds are the United Nations agencies … The United Nations Development Programme was particularly hard-hit … we urge the donor community to restore the funding of these agencies on an adequate basis.
As with Ethiopia, the world is in a crisis. Rich countries are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In the past 10 years there has been a retrogression in the standard of living of developing countries, especially those south of the Sahara.
There is no doubt that aid money has been wasted. I accept that view. Machinery has been cast on one side and there have been many other examples of waste. However, it is not enough for the donor countries to be generous. They must give what the developing countries need—infrastructure, the ability to develop their own resources and to increase their standards of living — not merely food aid. That is how one achieves the mutuality of interests between the developed and the developing countries. In those circumstances there is a reciprocation of benefits in so far as the developing countries are able to increase their standards of living and the developed countries can increase the market for their manufactured goods.
The United Nations developing programme can help in that respect. In developing countries, such as Jamaica, one sees the tragedy of help that could be available not being given. Jamaica has to borrow money at 11 per cent. interest to hire people at international rates to do Civil Service jobs. That money should be provided by the UNDP in the form of grants. Jamaica has to borrow the money because the UNDP has insufficient money. Even countries, such as the United Kingdom, which have a


sophisticated aid organisation cannot hope to reach all the developing countries, especially the small ones which are effectively on no country's aid list. At this point I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Department for the organisation of aid. The Department is a fine example to other countries.
There is a political overtone to bilateral aid. Two thirds of America's aid goes to Egypt and Israel. Moreover, there is not so much scrutiny of how money is spent in a donee country when the aid is bilateral. Smaller countries will suffer if we devote all or the preponderance of our resources to bilateral aid, thereby starving United Nations agencies, especially the UNDP, of the necessary aid. The UNDP and other international bodies are more likely to concentrate on the poorest countries which do not appear on major countries' aid lists.
The rate of return from multilateral aid can be just as good as, if not better than, that from bilateral aid. It is interesting to examine the benefits that the United Kingdom and United Kingdom companies have gained from the UNDP. In 1981, for example, direct orders placed with British firms as a result of UNDP activities amounted to $20 million in goods, $8·15 million in services—that is British consultancy firms engaged on UNDP projects—and $18 million in training. That latter figure is made up of the 1,259 UNDP fellows studying in Britain, each of whom cost the UNDP about $15,000. Those figures tot up to $46·15 million. Therefore, in 1981, from a contribution of $34·17 million or £17·5 million to the UNDP, Britain received £23·54 million from UNDP activities. That does not include the considerable return value of salaries received by 1,223 British specialists who were paid by the UNDP. Therefore, in 1981, the British economy gained more than £6 million.
The UNDP is always opening up opportunities for capital investment throughout the Third world. In 1981 alone it made possible nearly $5 billion of follow-up investment. British firms are very well placed to gain from the increased activity that the UNDP can help to generate, provided that it has the funds. In 1981, for example, 26 British firms gained orders for equipment from UNDP activities worth more than $100,000 each and in total about 130 British firms gained orders. I shall not list the details of those orders or the companies that benefited. However, I hope that I have made clear my case about the benefits that can accrue to a country that is prepared to give a donation to the UNDP for its excellent work.
The UNDP has offices in 114 countries. It has a worldwide presence. It is unique, because it deals with many other United Nations organisations on behalf of those countries. If the UNDP was forced to close some of those offices, there would be no United Nations presence in those countries.
The UNDP has cut its staff by 8 or 9 per cent. That has meant cutting field representation. Further cuts in UNDP funding would entail a complete change in the quality of its service, because field costs amount to two thirds of the total costs.
Between 1978 and 1982, Britain's contribution to the UNDP was cut by 56 per cent. in real terms. Last year the United Kingdom would have had to give £42 million to give as much in real terms as in 1978. In fact, our contribution in 1982 was £18·5 million—only 44 per cent. of our 1978 contribution. My right hon. Friend in his

written answer said that the contribution in 1983 will be the same as that for 1982. That will be a further cut in real terms.
The UNDP is an efficient and effective body. Its overhead costs amount to less than 5 per cent. of the value of its activities. The poorest countries, such as Ethiopia, benefit very much from the UNDP. It is our duty to humanity to ensure that it can carry on its excellent work. I urge my right hon. Friend to keep close to his heart the benefits that can accrue not only to the poorest countries but to this country. There is mutuality. In helping the poor people of the world—in helping to alleviate suffering, deprivation and starvation—we do this country a service not only in financial and economic terms, but in terms of its status in the world in showing concern for humanity.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for introducing the subject of Ethiopia. He spoke movingly of the situation there, and the House listened with care both to him and to the other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. The hon. Member stressed the need for a reduction in internal strife in Ethiopia. We are all in agreement with him on that point. He also talked about the terrible drought. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give the latest information on what is happening in Ethiopia. We expect to receive an up-to-date report very shortly and I shall be very happy to pass it on to him.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked me about the European Community food ship. We are not responsible for that, but I shall investigate the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know what is happening.
We must all be concerned about the terrible effects of drought on human lives. In a few moments, I shall outline what we are doing in that respect. However, development aid is also a long-term process and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is asking for the resumption of our direct aid involvement with Ethiopia for several years to come.
The House listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) when he told us of his recent experiences in Ethiopia. I was pleased by what he had to say about the operation of the British Council. I was delighted to hear that it is doing an excellent job. Apart from the British Council, at present we have no direct bilateral aid programme to Ethiopia, although we are heavily involved in helping the country through multilateral channels, especially the European Community. It is wrong not to take full account of what we do through agencies such as the World Bank and the Community, and simply to think in terms of our bilateral aid. It all comes out of the same pocket, and it is all part of our aid programme.
Ethiopia is the largest recipient of money from the European development fund under the second Lomé convention. It has been allocated 132 million ecu —about £80 million—and our share of that is nearly £15 million. The fund will help finance projects relating to the Addis Ababa water supply, the coffee crop, new power generation capacity and new hospitals. So, through the Community we are certainly making—if indirectly—a substantial contribution to the country's future.
Those who are keen to leave the EC should think from time to time about the implications of that for the aid given by it. In this case, it is clearly very important. However, we decided in 1979 that our direct bilateral aid programme should be discontinued. We did so because of the internal and external strife affecting the country, and because of our concern over the Ethiopian regime's abuse of human rights as it sought to consolidate its power after the 1974 revolution. There was parliamentary and public repugnance at the manner in which Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown. There was also considerable unease about the methods being used to suppress Eritrean guerrilla efforts to recover the autonomy of which they had been deprived. Furthermore, the new regime became increasingly aligned with the Soviet Union, in both internal and external policies. It was also reluctant at first even to consider providing compensation for the assets, which were worth about £15 million, that it had seized from British enterprises.
Since 1979 the position has not altered greatly. On many occasions we have made clear to the Ethiopian Government our strong objection to the imprisonment without trial of political prisoners. However, we were encouraged by the amnesties of 1981 and 1982 and hope that the process of release will be completed before too long. There is, of course, still considerable sympathy for the 19 surviving members of the imperial family who remain in prison.
Eritrea remains a disturbed area, where there have been reports of renewed fighting. The Ethiopian Government are aware of our belief that regional disputes should be settled not by violence but by conciliation. The military effort has now become bogged down, but we welcome the fact that the major operation of 1982 stressed social and economic betterment as much as military victory. But we remain concerned at the scale and nature of the involvement of the Russians and their surrogates in Ethiopia. We believe that there are still some 11,000 Cuban troops in Ethiopia, plus more than 1,500 Russian military advisers and several hundred Russian and East German aid personnel. Outside Angola they represent the largest Soviet presence in Africa.
There is also still the unresolved problem of compensation for British commercial assets seized by the Ethiopians after the revolution. We continue to remind the Ethiopian authorities of their responsibilities. These matters are largely for negotiation between the Ethiopian Government and the commercial interests concerned but they inevitably affect our relations with Ethiopia.
Having said that, I recognise—as one must—that there are immediate needs of human misery that none of us can or should overlook just because our longer-term relationship with Ethiopia does not include bilateral aid. First among those immediately is, of course, the widespread drought. As has been said, it has been particularly severe in the Wollo, Gondar, Eritrea and Tigre regions. The Ethiopian authorities reckon that about 3 million people may be affected, but that only 1 million of them are accessible.
Supplies already pledged by donors — including Britain and the Community —would would be sufficient for emergency distribution in all these regions, together with cereals bought locally, but the capacity of the ports to handle inputs, as well as the poor security situation in many areas, mean that delivery in the distribution areas has been slow. Fortunately, most parts of the country have

had favourable weather, but it is a matter of keeping the famine area going till the main foodcrops are harvested in November and December.
During the past few months the European Community has delivered or allocated food aid worth about £8 million comprising 40,000 tonnes of cereals, 2,000 tonnes of milk powder and more than 1,000 tonnes of butter oil. The cost is met out of the Community budget, of which the British share is about one fifth. Further EC food aid allocations will be made soon. We have been doing what we can directly from our resources to contribute to relief work inside and outside Ethiopia. In that country we have given 19,000 tonnes of food aid, worth about £2·8 million, from our bilateral contribution to the world food programme; £100,575 to the Save the Children fund to help with the costs of a supplementary feeding centre for young children in Korem in north Wollo; a further £50,000 to the Save the Children fund for seven Land Rovers for the feeding programme in Korem and new programmes in other areas; £100,000 to the Save the Children fund and £75,000 to the British Red Cross Society for general relief work; and 75,000 to the United Nations disaster relief office. Those grants to the voluntary agencies and the United Nations are especially important since they will help with the problem of distribution, which I mentioned.
Some hon. Members have asked whether the aid gets through. I am happy to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) and by Labour Members on this matter. We are aware of allegations that food aid and other relief have been diverted to the Ethiopian army and to the Soviet Union. The European Commission's delegate in Addis Ababa has extensive facilities for monitoring the use of food and development aid, and has on several occasions examined carefully allegations of misuse. He has never found evidence to confirm them. A recent mission by members of the European Parliament rejected allegations of resale to the Soviet Union as nonsense, and although they could not confirm that no food aid was abused or misdirected, they were satisfied that huge quantities were clearly used for the right purpose and that thousands would die without it. That at least is helpful.
As I have mentioned the voluntary agencies and their work, I am sure that the House would wish to welcome the release of the hostages who were kidnapped by the Tigrean People's Liberation Front on 20 April. The 10 expatriates, who included four Britons and one Indian, all employed by the Save the Children fund, and about 10 Ethiopian staff, were all released unharmed after several weeks in captivity, and a lengthy trek to the Sudanese border. I cannot praise too highly the courage and dedication of those aid personnel, and I am sure that this episode will not be allowed to disrupt the valuable relief work which is confining. Equally, I cannot condemn too strongly this senseless act of disruption to the Save the Children fund's humanitarian work. Besides the relief organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, which rendered helpful assistance at a critical time, I wish to thank the Sudanese authorities for their splendid cooperation, and the Ethiopian authorities for their forbearance during the difficult weeks.
I should say a word about the drought in Africa in a wider context, because there is great anxiety about that. We have been concerned by reports of the drought in recent months and we are watching the position closely. We have commissioned reports from our missions in the


affected areas and have kept in close contact with our partners in the European Community and with United Nations agencies such as the Food and Agricultural Organisation. We are studying a report just published by the FAO. The picture that has emerged so far suggests that the effects of the drought are patchy. Some countries have escaped altogether or have suffered only lightly. Central and southern Africa, including Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, is the region worst hit, as I have seen for myself. East Africa, with Ethiopia the principal and tragic exception, has escaped the worst effects. Ghana and Mauritania in west Africa are very badly affected. The effects of the drought have been compounded by other factors. Animal diseases, such as rinderpest and foot and mouth, have taken their toll. Refugee problems are both a cause and a symptom of the difficulties faced by some countries. Pest infestation and lack of roads and transport are other crucial factors.
We are doing what we can. In the current crisis we have already provided approximately £500,000 of drought relief assistance to Ethiopia. In addition to the substantial relief that we provided last year, we have this year donated mobile trucks for Botswana's emergency feeding programme, at a cost of £52,000. Over the last two financial years we have contributed towards an emergency airlift of food in Chad and have provided transport to ferry relief supplies. We have responded to a Red Cross appeal for transport and other items for an emergency feeding programme in Mauritania, and in the last two years we have supplied transport in Mozambique. We have provided transport for Zimbabwe's emergency feeding arrangements through non—government organisations working there. This is all disaster relief. We also do much under our normal bilateral programme to counter the effects of such droughts. We have projects to extend the supply of drinking water to the rural villages of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. We are involved also in the provision of improved water supplies to the west and savannah areas of the Sudan. For some years we have been involved in studies to evaluate underground water resources in Botswana also. We are providing assistance for irrigation projects in Zambia.
We also have a bilateral food aid programme, which plays an important part. There are major contributions from the European Community programme of food aid from which many African countries receive assistance. Substantial allocations have been made recently to Botswana, Lesotho, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe in specific response to the current drought, and further allocations to African countries will be made soon. Beyond this, the United Kingdom Government strongly support Community efforts to improve food production in the developing countries through the design and implementation of national food strategies, for which Community assistance has been offered to a number of African countries. I hope that the House will accept, therefore, that we are making an important and effective response to the grave problems of drought and hunger which afflict so much of Africa today. I hope the House will feel that we are making the right response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn raised a slightly different topic, although it is clearly related to the main subject of our debate — the United Nations development programme. I underline what was said in the

House on 12 July by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during the debate on overseas development. We are utterly committed to the work being done by the UNDP. Since its inception, the United Kingdom has strongly supported the UNDP as the major funding and co-ordinating body for United Nations technical co-operation. We believe that the programme still has a vital part to play in harnessing the experience of the various United Nations specialised agencies and the financial contributions of donor countries to help developing countries build their capacity to undertake their own development programmes.
It is recognised generally that technical assistance is an essential complement to capital investment, and the UNDP is particularly well placed to provide the technical assistance which developing countries need if they are to make effective use of capital aid. The fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon said, the contribution to the UNDP in recent years has had to be reduced does not reflect a lessening of a belief in the UNDP; it is simply the result of the economic difficulties which we had to face.
The need to restrain public expenditure as part of the Government's strategy to put the economy on a sound footing has led to cuts in our aid programme and other areas of our aid spending. In addition, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the funds available for the UNDP are limited by the pressures of our other substantial multilateral commitments, particularly those resulting from the growing European Community aid programme and our policy of trying to give greater priority to our bilateral aid programmes. As a result of this policy, in 1980 the Government had to decide that future contributions to multilateral agencies such as UNDP would have to reflect more closely than in the past our relative economic strength. We should not, however lose sight of the fact that our contribution remains substantial.
The United Kingdom pledge of £18·5 million for 1982 represented approximately 5 per cent. of UNDP resources —roughly proportionate to our relative wealth as shown by the admittedly rather crude measure of GNP. The United Kingdom remains among the top 10 contributors to UNDP. We have not yet decided upon the level of our contribution for 1984. We shall certainly do all that we can to help within the limits of available resources.
There is one other point which I think is worth putting to the House. We and a handful of other Western donors contribute over 90 per cent. of UNDP resources. The Government believe that for UNDP to achieve greater financial security it is necessary for the support base to be widened. In particular, the Eastern bloc countries, whose contributions are not just deplorably small, but made mainly in non-convertible currencies which UNDP cannot readily use, must be persuaded to contribute on a scale more commensurate with their means. For example, in 1983 the USSR provided only US $3·7 million or 0·5 per cent. of UNDP resources. Of that, 25 per cent. only was in convertible currency. According to UNDP's statistics, that is less than India's contribution. It is clear that there are others who should be playing a much greater part in supporting the UNDP.
I return to the principal topic of debate—Ethiopia. I hope that what I have told the House shows our recognition of the great human problem that exists there. It is not just a matter between states, though, inevitably, our long-term aid depends upon our wider relationship with Ethiopia.


That sets narrow limits, but, in a short-term human crisis, we all have to find ways to reach past these short-term limits to help those who suffer. For that reason, I stress again the great importance of the voluntary agencies, which are doing so much, and the substantial part being played by the European Community, and I am glad to say that in both those respects the Government have been able to help with their work in dealing with this problem.

West Midlands

Mr. Roger King: This, I believe, is the third debate that the House has had recently on the subject of the west midlands and its economy. We make no excuse for bringing it to the nation's attention once again. We believe that the west midlands is vital. Without a successful, vibrant and dynamic community within the heart of the country, we cannot expect industry and industrial development elsewhere to gather pace. We believe that by bringing the west midlands' plight to the country's attention, we can perhaps play our part in enabling the nation's industrial improvement to gather pace.
A brief history of the west midlands is probably desirable. The area was forged out of the industrial revolution. The small town of Ironbridge, which sits on the river Severn, was the crucible in which the industrial revolution was born. It was there that man originally learnt how to mass-produce goods. From that area many of the supply industries were spawned until eventually west midlands county, the area that contains Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsall and latterly Coventry, was formed.
As befits its origins, the west midlands has become over-endowed with engineering capacity—the so-called metal bashing which these days so many people tend to deride. It is that metal bashing that over the past 150 to 200 years has given us the society, economy and wealth that we enjoy today. It is an area in which the entrepreneur, the small business man, has been able over the past century or so to play his part. Many small industries that were born in the area have grown to become household names and their products are to be found throughout the world.
In common with many prime industrial areas, the ravages of world recession have played their part. However, we are affected not only by the problems of world recession but by those that are home-grown. They are the problems of lack of management, lack of productivity and a lack of products, all of which have played their part in causing the west midlands to lose its prime position as the main provider of our industrial background.
In many ways, too, we have not been helped by Government policies over the years, under Governments of all political persuasions. Regional policies have been created that have forced industry away from where it was born, from where it was acting and performing in an extremely profitable way to the regions. A prime example of this is the motor industry. In the 1950s we had a strong motor industry, but it was forced to disperse to many of the development areas in the north-west, Scotland and south Wales. Many of those factories are now no longer with us because we have seen the results to our cost, and to that of our country. The companies concerned have had to have supply lines and conveyor belts some 200 or 300 miles long. One cannot be productive or efficient with such a supply system.
The problem too is that when companies wanted to expand and add an extra 2,000 or 3,000 sq ft to complement and satisfy the demand that their products were having to meet in the market place or whenever they wanted to put up additional factory premises the


Government stepped in and said, "No, you cannot do it in the west midlands, but if you want to put that factory space 150 miles away, by all means do so, and with financial help from us." Forced into such a situation, companies had the choice of putting up the extra plant elsewhere or doing without it. Some chose to do without, and perhaps their decision was a wise one. Others invested in some of the development areas and have learnt to their cost the problems of running long supply lines and running the company in so many different parts of the country.
Even when we, an area so dependent on metal bashing, tried to create our own sunrise industries, the plunderers came. In the past week or so, we have heard the skirl of the bagpipes and seen the flourish of the kilts as the Scots came down the M6 offering large sums of money, and walked off with one of our original computer industries in applied computer techniques. Five hundred jobs have gone to Scotland that the west midlands thought could be ours, and could be part of a dynamic breakthrough into the world of advanced technology.
The company has gone, in its infinite wisdom, and has been seduced in part parhaps by the large sums of money provided by the Scottish development agency. That is not just a shame but a disgrace. Regional aid has never created any new jobs. Far from it, it has taken from good areas and put these industries elsewhere, where they should not be. In the end, those industries have fallen by the wayside and the jobs that were in the west midlands have disappeared as well.
We welcome, as a result of the work of many of my colleagues over the years, the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) as Minister with special responsibility for the west midlands. We welcome the fact that he has accepted this challenge. We are aware of how much work he has already done in the area to re-establish it as a major manufacturing base. He has a very hard job to do.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to give us figures for the number of jobs actually achieved in the west midlands by his honourable colleague.

Mr. King: The practical fact is that we are currently interested in job retention. We shall work towards a period of job increase. In January, 1,000 new jobs will be created at Austin, Longbridge, so there are signs of a possible upturn. Jobs are not easily created by any economic activity, however, due to the productivity problems that still exist in many companies.
We must seek not more regional aid but fairer treatment for the west midlands. On average, it costs 10 per cent. more to produce a car component in the west midlands than in a development area, thanks to the subsidies given to the development areas. Companies which have moved to the development areas and taken their jobs with them can therefore undercut many of the companies which, so far, have stayed in the west midlands.
The only aid to which the west midlands is entitled is section 8 assistence, provided that the investment project would go ahead anyway with or without that aid. About £1 billion is provided by the Government to help the regions. As a small gesture, a more charitable interpretation of section 8 aid might allow certain

industries in the west midlands — automotive components, for example — to obtain such aid virtually automatically.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Would it not help if the Minister stopped destroying jobs? In the first two months of his appointment, 10,000 jobs have disappeared from the west midlands.

Mr. King: I am sure that the Minister will respond to that when he winds up the debate.
In considering the problems facing industry in the west midlands, we must also consider the burdens that it carries. A prime example is the rates burden. The Government's decision to abolish the west midlands county council, which is duplicating much of the work of many of the existing metropolitan district councils, is a major step in the right direction. We look forward to that taking place as fast as the necessary legislation can be prepared.
The metropolitan districts in the west midlands also face a great problem. In many instances rateable values and block grants are assessed on values fixed in 1972. Anyone who has driven around the area will know of the great changes that have occurred. As a result, local authority income from Government grant is much reduced. All metropolitan districts are in the bottom 10 for the marginal rate of grant. For every pound spent at the margin we get just 17p, whereas 18 metropolitan districts outside the west midlands get more than 35p in aid. Clearly, a reevaluation of rateable values should take place before long, but there may not be time for that. We may need a corrective multiplier, as many London councils have had in the past, to upgrade the rateable value of the area as quickly as possible.

Mr. John Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rates element is the major burden on manufacturing industry in the west midlands? It is nonsense that companies are forced not just to take off the roofs but to demolish their premises. Does he therefore welcome the commitment in our election manifesto to deny local authorities such as the Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council the right to levy void rates on empty industrial and commercial buildings?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. It is an absolute certainty that rates have played an important part in determining the amount of factory space that is in use in the west midlands. They have caused an amazing contraction among companies that cannot afford to maintain property on the offchance that come the eventual economic upturn it will again be commissioned. Indeed, my hon. Friend has helped to dismantle a roof to underline the great difficulties that local industry must face in coming to terms with the rating policies of many district councils. Some of the absurd policies introduced by those councils over the last few years have, in fact, resulted in job losses.
One of the prime industries in the west midlands has traditionally been the car industry—perhaps a case of secular aid at its best. The Government have put a large sum of taxpayers' money into British Leyland and at long last are beginning to get value for money. Productivity is increasing and the number of cars being produced on time to the right specification is increasing week by week. As I said earlier, 1,000 new jobs will be coming to Longbridge as a result of the Triumph Acclaim move from


Cowley to Longbridge. We look forward to the creation of more jobs in the motor industry so that it can again become one of our prime industries.
I need not remind the House of the concern of the car workers in Longbridge, bearing in mind the unfair treatment meted out to their industry. I refer in particular to the level of Spanish imports. Much has been said about this over the last year or so, and supposedly we now have a better deal with Spain. However, the facts belie that. The Spanish can, if they wish—and they most certainly will —bring into this country between 50,000 and 55,000 Fiesta and Vauxhall Nova cars. But in the capacity from 1 litre to 1,600cc, we are able to send to Spain at a reduced import tariff precisely 997 Metros. That is not wholly acceptable, and we must look for much better and fairer treatment from Spain towards our products. We are not even allowed to send any of our 1 litre Metros to Spain. They are banned completely, yet that car is particularly suitable for the Spanish market. We do not want to deny our market to Spain; all we want is fairer treatment for our products in that country.
We must also look to Government fiscal policy such as the special car tax. Cars made here in Longbridge and elsewhere are subject to 26·5 per cent. tax, if one includes VAT and the 10 per cent. special car tax. Yet Japanese made videos attract only 15 per cent. tax. There is some irrationality there that is obvious to many of the car workers in the midlands.
We should also look at some of the problems confronting the components industry. Large sums of money have gone to the prime producers — the manufacturers—who in many cases are nothing more than glorified assemblers of other people's components. Many of those companies must operate with outdated equipment and are now facing competition from other countries, not just from Europe but from the Far East. Some special treatment for those companies, perhaps allied to the car industry through some secular fiscal measures, would he welcome.
We would be on difficult ground if people were asked what help the west midlands required, because I doubt whether they could agree on what was needed. However, the removal of the national insurance surcharge for the west midlands area is just one example of how productivity and profitability could be improved.
When we embark upon railway modernisation, west midlands industry might be encouraged to become prime suppliers for the replacement of British Rail's diesel passenger car fleet. Although such policies might be called backdoor regional aid, they are ways to stimulate and reinvest much of our expertise in manufacturing capacity.
It is necessary to rationalise some of tie industry in the area. Far too many companies are competing for the same product sphere. It has been tried in the steel and foundry industries, but in many other industries unnecessary competition still causes great problems, such as lack of profitability. The Government should carefully consider a policy to encourage rationalisation of product lines and manufacturing companies.
We hope that the area will attract a free port. It is a new experiment and the west midlands is ideally situated for the creation of a free port zone. It is at the centre of the country with reasonably good access by road and rail. It has a major airport near Birmingham. We await with interest and hope the news that a free port will come to the area.
Two enterprise zones have been designated at Dudley and Telford. It is too early to determine their effect on the area, but an enterprise zone in an existing conurbation may be less successful than one in a separate town a few miles away, such as Telford. Time will tell. We welcome the Government's initiative and look forward to its successful outcome.
The infrastucture of the area needs to be examined. There is still no road from the west midlands to the east coast ports. We talk about it and the Government have planned it. It exists in a pencil line all but for the battle of Naseby. All depends on the decision as to whether the motorway will go over it, around it or even under it. Until that decision is made the west midlands will be denied its major motorway to the east coast port. It is of prime importance—we need that road as a vital exit for many of the goods that we produce.
Another snag that affects much of the country as well as the west midlands is the level of apprenticeships. They used to be a vital part of our economic activity. This year only 760 apprenticeships are being created — nothing short of a disaster—compared with 3,000 in 1978. The Government are providing a number of schemes under the youth training programme, and they are on target. But we need a son of the training schemes, something to follow it.
The problem with apprenticeships is simple — industry cannot afford them. When I began my apprenticeship in 1960 I was paid £2 4s. 6d a week, which was 15 to 20 per cent. of the average working man's wage. Now, an apprentice's wage hovers between £50 and £60 a week—more than 50 per cent. of the average man's wage.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the prime causes of the decline in apprenticeships in the west midlands is that an employer prefers to employ someone free under the youth training scheme, for which the Manpower Services Commission provides funds? The rapid decline in apprenticeships is running concurrent with the rise in the number of schemes introduced by the Government, which are intended to replace time-served apprenticeships. The Government have said that they intend to abolish those during the next two and a half years.

Mr. King: I cannot accept that. It is clear that apprenticeships have been declining over the past 10 years not over the past 12 months. One of the prime problems of apprenticeships is that they are too expensive for an employer these days. Half of the problem has been the interminable wrangling between unions and management about the level of wages rather than the quality of apprenticeships. Far too many are dragged on for five meaningless years when they could be compressed more effectively into three years to get people through a proper training scheme.
We must not look at the youth training scheme as an alternative to apprenticeships. It is a complementary system. After youngsters have completed 12 months on the youth training scheme there should be a son of the YTS for them to go onto—an apprenticeship scheme at a realistic cost to the management. Management is already beginning to experience a reduction in skilled personnel in the area and we must address ourselves to the problem


of training the young. The YTS is a major step forward but it must not be seen in isolation. We need to look at it alongside the traditional form of apprenticeship.
Another point that needs to be made is that the west midlands is not just an area that is completely dependent upon its engineering industries. In the past 10 years it took a substantial initiative in becoming involved in the exhibition industry with the creation of the National Exhibition Centre. The city of Birmingham did that off its own financial bat and it cost about £47·7 million. Those hon. Members who have been to the NEC will have witnessed its amazing achievements — the compact arrangement of rapid rail transport which is adjacent to the airport, the new terminal that is now being produced with its revolutionary MAG-LEV transportation system, the considerable infrastructure of display halls, and all the paraphernalia that one needs for a massive national exhibition centre. I repeat that that was done with very little recourse to Government money. The Government contributed only about £1·6 million.
The exhibition industry is a growth area. With the present world recession, the number of exhibitions are not growing as fast as exhibitors and organisers would like, but when the economy picks up throughout the world the exhibition industry is expected to grow. That industry has been created in Birmingham out of our own regional money without recourse to the taxpayer, but it is now meeting competition from other areas which are seeking money from the taxpayer to create rival organisations. Manchester has converted an old railway station, and that is attracting a £7 million inner city grant. Manchester is not far away from Birmingham and is a potential rival to the NEC. Another exhibition centre in Scotland will receive £14 million from the Scottish Development Agency for its development. In addition, there is now a strong possibility that the London docklands will receive an exhibition centre of world standard in due course. If that is the case, there will be far too many exhibition centres in Britain. What is more, there will not be enough to fill them with and each and every one of them will become a liability on the ratepayers or the investors who put money into them.
The intelligent way to look at this matter is to set up a joint consultative board for exhibition centres so that new applications can be vetted and perhaps even licensed, otherwise Britain will become overexhibited.
I hope that my points and those that my hon. Friends will make will be seen as evidence of the fact that the west midlands is determined to play its part in the regeneration of Britain's economic fortunes. Expertise still exists in the area which is teeming with entrepreneurs who need the assistance and guidance which the Government are already giving them. It has a substantial backdrop of skilled workmen of all age groups. We must not imagine that many of the new skilled workers are just coming from the youngsters. There are many people in the 50–60 age group who still have a great deal to offer to industry and the area. All that we need is fair treatment. I believe that the Government realise that but cannot quite take the next step forward in order to bring that about. Without a dynamic, vibrant west midlands, the rest of the country cannot hope to prosper economically to anything like the extent for which we hope. I trust that my hon. Friends will agree.

Mr. George Park: In previous debates on the west midlands economy Opposition Members, including myself, have been accused of talking the region down when we were really attempting to gain some recognition and positive action by the Government to remedy the disasterous position in the west midlands. The choice of subject by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and other initiatives by midlands Conservative Members may be a sign of a belated realisation that we were not merely playing party politics. I welcome the hon. Member for Northfield to the club. I hope that if we manage again to force a vote on the subject, the hon. Gentleman, who expressed candour and determination, will put his vote where his mouth is.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Park: I have known the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for too long to be silly enough to allow him to intervene at this point. Conservative Members may have been helped on their way since the Government take no notice of Opposition Members. However, they may be prepared to accept statements by bodies which have no connection with the Labour party. I refer to the west midlands chamber of commerce, which says:
It would be pleasant to join in the general euphoria about the UK economy if it applied to the West Midlands, but our latest quarterly economic survey indicates that we are now back to where we were when the bubble of optimism burst in June 1982.
The west midlands CBI has made similar statements. It does not agree with the national body that more people should be thrown out of work. The chairman of the west midlands district council, Councillor Neville Bosworth, the Conservative leader of Birmingham city council, in a submission to the Department of the Environment, seeking a meeting, states that the problems in the west midlands are too pressing to await local government revaluation. He sets out the facts of increasing unemployment, decreasing gross domestic product, lower earnings and how the differentials in the block grant, compared with other areas, disadvantage the west midlands.
The British Institute of Management believes that Government decisions do not appear to pay due regard to the needs of industry and do not carry sufficient awareness of their impact on industry. The Building Trades Institute says that most of the decline in that industry is due to deliberate Government action to reduce spending on housing, roads, schools, hospitals and public utilities. New public construction has been halved in the last 10 years and private construction is now three quarters of the 1973 level.
Faced with that, the Government have reopened the small engineering firms investment scheme. We urged that in our last debate on the subject, and in the debate before that. I welcome the fact that 260 firms have collected £2·2 million in grants towards purchasing new equipment, but that does not begin to tackle the major problems.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been given responsibility for the west midlands, but, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is being asked to make bricks without straw, since, to the best of my knowledge, no extra resources have been placed at his disposal. Therefore his appointment appears to be more of a public relations exercise than anything constructive.

Mr. Faulds: Cosmetic.

Mr. Parkz: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's job is to co-ordinate policies which have already led to substantial deindustrialisation in the west midlands. One can see acre upon acre of outdated plant near the centre of Birmingham. From time to time we are urged not to encroach further on valuable agricultural land. Has the Minister or any of his colleagues any intention of removing this outdated plant to create what would be a green field site near the heart of Birmingham? That would help the environment and provide purpose-built factories for new industries.
An industrial development association has been set up to promote the region and to encourage inward investment. Here we may have come to the nub of the argument. The hon. Member for Northfield signally failed to mention investment. He talked about all these active entrepreneurs and what they had done for the midlands in the past. One thing they most certainly did was to take more out than they put in. That is one of the major reasons for the decline of the west midlands.
The fact is that the providers of risk capital no longer want or need to take risks with new ventures. What incentive is there for them with interest rates as high as they are? Multinational companies — those household names to which the hon. Gentleman referred—are now making investments, but not in the west midlands. The investments are being made abroad.

Mr. Faulds: That is right.

Mr. Park: If the hon. Member for Northfield looks at those factories, he will see that that is the case. It goes even further with banks pulling the rug out from under viable companies, such as Cannings in Birmingham, and the Government allowing the taxpayer to be ripped off for the third time, as in the case of Alfred Herbert, and the Minister with responsibility for the west midlands standing helplessly by. The taxpayer has been taken to the cleaners three times by the Government over Alfred Herbert.
When the Government came to office they told the National Enterprise Board to get rid of a3 many companies as it possibly could. So Alfred Herbert was sold off at a bargain basement price to Tooling Investments. Unfortunately, it did not have the resources to carry the company through, so it was sold again at an even lower bargain basement price to Tube Investments. Now TI has the CNC lathe—a computer-controlled lathe developed with taxpayers' money — and the benefits will go to private companies that have not contributed a penny to its development.
At a time when investment is desperately needed the Chancellor proposes to siphon off £500 million of private capital in part payment for national assets, which are on the market only because they are earning profits—they would not be on the market if they were not earning profits —instead of using that potential £500 million to breathe life into struggling industries or into new ventures, such as the Birmingham airport free zone—an initiative by the much derided West Midlands County Council, which I hope will succeed.
If the west midlands is to regain its former prosperity and we are to have fair competition in the United Kingdom, the current review of regional policy being undertaken by the Department is vital. It is possible for

companies in other parts of Britain to undercut firms in the west midlands because of the difference in recognition given by the Government to different areas.
However, it goes further than that, as the hon. Member for Northfield said. Indeed, he must have taken careful note of the speeches made by Labour Members in previous debates. Stronger action is needed to eliminate unfair trading by other countries. The hon. Gentleman cited the classic case of Spain. When I questioned the former Minister for Trade about that, he replied that it would be dealt with within the EC. What sort of Government responsibility was that?
Attention must also be paid, as I pointed out, to the block grant differentials in local government. As the Prime Minister now realises, pointing to the faults of the rating system is much easier than producing viable alternatives. I urge the hon. Member for Northfield to examine carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) about rates being such a burden on industry before he, too, follows the latest trend of blaming everybody but the Government.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and I served on the same Select Committee on the Environment which looked into the rating system? It was unanimously agreed by that Committee, as it was by all the witnesses bar one, that the rating system should be retained. The Committee thought that the Government should examine the possibility of a local income tax, but there was no question of the rating system being done away with. Indeed, the Committee concluded that it would be virtually impossible to do so.

Mr. Park: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.
The Prime Minister would have realised, had she stopped to think—instead of taking off on cloud nine on some popular proposal about the rates — that, after commissions and investigations into the rating system under successive Governments, no viable alternative has been put forward. There is no such easily collectable tax as rates, with so few bad debts. All other alternative schemes contain snags. There are faults in the rating system, but we need to examine it far more carefully before saying that it should be abolished, as the Prime Minister said and then had to retract.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman said that there were faults in the rating system, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would endorse that. Does he agree that the major burden for the payment of rates falls on the industrial and commercial ratepayer, who has no voice, no vote, no say and no sanction over the way in which the local authority controls his money? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that, yes or no?

Mr. Faulds: What rubbish.

Mr. Park: The simple answer is no, I do not agree with that string of shibboleths from the hon. Gentleman. I urge him quietly to examine what he said. According to Accountancy Age, rates represent 1 per cent. of manufacturing costs.

Mr. Heddle: Ask Dupont or Plessey or any other company.

Mr. Park: I wish the hon. Gentleman would permit me to answer the question he has already asked. The


Government continue to look for scapegoats on which to offload their responsibility for failing to regenerate industry. If the hon. Gentleman examines the rating system carefully, he may find that what I have said is based more on fact than his slogans.
Urgent action is needed in many or all of the areas to which I have referred, including the clearance of derelict factories and the introduction of a fairer regional policy, which must be knitted into a national policy if it is to make sense. It must be recognised that preferential treatment of one area will be to the detriment of another. The Department of Trade and Industry must do something positive about the appalling tariff differentials—Spain is an example—that face our exporters. If the Government believe in competition let them believe also in fair competition, for that will give our manufacturers a chance. I believe that they can hold their own with anyone in the world if they face fair competition.
If we are to halt the decline in the west midlands, the Government must take on board any or all of these items. One step in the right direction would be the removal of the special car tax. If regional policy is to be successful, it must be part of a national policy that is designed to bring hope and jobs to Britain's industrial areas.

Mr. David Lightbown: As is the custom and tradition of the House, I shall take a few moments to speak about my constituency at the start of my maiden speech before proceeding to the main issues of the debate. My constituency is part of the west midlands conurbation and I consider it a great honour to serve it. The hub of the constituency is Tamworth, which has a historic association with the House. Sir Robert Peel, who was a Member of this place, introduced the first democratic manifesto 150 years ago next spring. I hope that the House will recognise that in due course.
Over a number of years I have had the honour to be associated with two Members who represented the old constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth. That apprenticeship with those two Members has, I am sure, stood me in good stead. I was associated with Major-General Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, who left the House in October 1974. He was a fine Member who looked after his constituency extremely well. He was a close personal friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who represented Lichfield and Lamworth from 1979, is in his place this evening. I thank him for his assistance and support in everything that he has done towards my apprenticeship in representing Staffordshire, South-East.
I have been associated with industry and business in the midlands for 25 years. I have been associated with local politics for about half of that time. I know the west midlands politically and industrially. When I went there many years ago it was an extremely prosperous area. Its industries were the motor, the machine tool, the cycle and motor cycle industries, heavy and light industry—both electrical and mechanical — and many ancillary industries. Some have now gone, others are in decline, and still others are, thankfully, still surviving.
I have listened to what Opposition Members have said today. I remind them that some of the decline has been self

inflicted over many years through restrictive practice, over-manning, poor design and finish, lack of investment in new equipment and technology, poor management and restrictive legislation.
Other damage to the industry of the west midlands has been caused by the policies of successive Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) reminded us of the problems of the industrial development certificates. They were the first nail in the coffin of the west midlands. They allowed expansion up to only 15,000 sq ft., so expansion beyond that had to go up to Clydeside, Merseyside, Northern Ireland or South Wales.
Regional aid, which successive Governments have encouraged, EC policies and funding have brought about unnatural splits in industries because unit costs are all important in the manufacture of the type of component that is produced in the west midlands, especially in the consumer durable and motor car industries, in which volume, space and maximum use of equipment are important.
We have suffered the lunacy of forcing supply lines out north, south, east and west away from the shop floor where they belong. That was a cosmetic move, a short-term expedient to solve some of the country's regional problems. I understand the thinking behind it, but the net result has been that we have merely moved those jobs away from where they can be effective and added to the non-costs of the companies and industries involved, thus accelerating the decline. That policy exacerbated their problems and created logistic problems that they could not overcome. We have now lost all of those jobs to overseas competition.
The hundreds of millions of pounds that have been spent on regional aid and in capital grants have had no lasting effect on the industries concerned and could well have contributed, in the long term, to their decline. I have seen machine tools, presses, assembly tracks and assembly equipment, all of which is almost brand new and partly bought with taxpayers' money, being sold off at knockdown prices to overseas buyers who will use them to compete once again with the traditional industries of the west midlands.
We must ask ourselves whether all the Government expenditure that the west midlands is involved in would have been necessary if industry had not been forced into successive shot-gun marriages. In 1964, the Labour party first invoked a shot-gun marriage in the motor industry. Would that expenditure have been necessary if we had not fragmented those industries north, south, east and west and forced them into unnatural divisions and unions, and if we had not encouraged their workers to believe that, come what may, Government would bail them out?
I hope that there is some sense of new realism in the west midlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield has said, there is some sign of improved productivity, of a part revival and of a turn for the better. I hope that that new sense of realism will be recognised by the House and by the Minister with special responsibility for the west midlands, and that we can ensure that the west midlands has a fair crack of the whip.
The west midlands has many problems as a result of the policies of successive Governments. I hope that those policies will be seriously reconsidered with a view to equability and to giving the west midlands a chance to


compete more favourably with the other regions, so proving that it can lead the industrial revival that we all desire to see.
Next time that I rise to speak on the west midlands I hope that the news will he better for that region and for its prospects, and that it will be recovering its prosperity and be on its way to better things.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) will not expect me to agree with much of what he said, but I congratulate him nevertheless on the manner in which he made his maiden speech. He spoke with undoubted confidence and fluency, and I am sure that the House was pleased to hear his contribution to this important debate.
There are two interrelated issues before us. The first concerns the position of the west midlands economy, the narrowness of its industrial base and the fact that for too long the region has relied on the motor industry and on what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) described as metal bashing. It is not in any way derogatory to say that. Metal bashing has clearly served the region well. The hon. Gentleman was right, in that it has served the west midlands for 150 years and has given a fair standard of living to many people.
It must be remembered, too, that in the 1930s people came from many depressed areas to find work in places such as Birmingham and Coventry. That is hardly likely to be true today. The west midlands needs new technological industries and must become less reliant on metal bashing. There is little evidence that Whitehall has given enough attention to the problems of the west midlands and the narrowness of its industrial base. When, from time to time, I have been on depwations, not to see the Under-Secretary of State who will reply to this debate, but some of his colleagues, I have detected that the problems of the west midlands are not really appreciated, which, to say the least, is extremely unfortunate.
The other issue is the way in which the Government have dealt hammer blows to the west midlands by their economic policies. It may embarass Conservative Members to be told that when the Government were elected in 1979, unemployment in the west midlands, and in Walsall travel-to-work area, was just 5·1 per cent. Perhaps wrong decisions were taken previously in regional policy, and perhaps more work should have gone to the west midlands, but we must bear in mind the problems that existed in other parts of the country. I wonder what those hon. Members who denounce regional policy would have said in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s if they had represented constituencies that had unemployment similar to that which exists now in the west midlands. Even with those regional policies, which the hon. Gentleman strongly criticised, the fact is that when the Government took office unemployment in the west midlands was less than the national average.
Darlaston, which lies just outside my constituency, was still a prosperous industrial town in 1979, even taking into account all the problems of the time, which I do not underestimate, but now it has many empty and derelict factories, including Rubery, Owen Holdings. Some would say that Darlaston and similar towns in the west midlands are a good illustration of what Britain has suffered as a result of Thatcherism and monetarism. Those hon.

Members who believe that rates are responsible for what has happened in the west midlands, and for the return of mass unemployment, cannot be taken seriously.
For most of this Government's period in office unemployment in the west midlands has been three times as high as it was in 1979, and is certainly higher than the national average. Within the west midlands, unemployment has been even higher in the black country. In the Walsall travel-to-work area the official figure of registered unemployed is 17·5 per cent., and it has been at about that figure for some time.
A circular that is sent, I believe, to all hon. Members from the Birmingham regional office of the Manpower Services Commission states that between 1 April this year and the end of June, which is a short period, there were 58 closures in the west midlands and 18 in the black country. Some of those places may have been small, but the figures show the present position in the west raidlands. Far from any sign of improvement, it is rather the opposite, with continuing redundancies and factory closures. In that same short period, 8,389 people were made redundant in the west midlands, and in Walsall travel-to-work area the figure was 775.
Although those are the official figures, we all know that if there had not been a change in the calculation of unemployment—the cosmetic changes to make it appear that unemployment is lower than it really is — the figures for the west midlands and the black country would be much higher.
What is more unfortunate is not just the number of unemployed, although that is bad enough, but the increasing number of people who are unemployed for 12 months or more. I have mentioned before—but it must be repeated because it is a national tragedy; it affects our area as much as any other part of the United Kingdom, but at present I am concerned with all those whom we represent — the problem of those in their forties and fifties who, once they are made redundant,- find it impossible to obtain another job. What are the chances of a man of 45 or 50 who has worked for a firm for 24 or 25 years finding a job if he is made redundant?
I read some nonsense in The Economist the other week about restaurant waiting being done by foreigners. The article said that it was strange that with such a high level of unemployment so many of these people were doing that job. That reminds me of what Lord Home of The Hirsel said in the 1930s, when he argued that many of the people who were unemployed in the north could become domestic servants in the south.
What about the skilled and semi-skilled people in the engineering and allied trades who have been made redundant? Should men in their forties and fifties 5ecome waiters? Is that the best prospect that the Government can offer them? [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Northfield is mumbling about.

Mr. Roger King: Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that being a waiter is a demeaning occupation? If he is, it means that there are people in this noble establishment who are somehow third-class citizens because they wait on us in dining rooms and so on.

Mr. Winnick: I am not saying anything of the kind. Those who have skills in the engineering trades— the kind of trades that built up our prosperity—should have the opportunity to continue to earn their living in those


trades. It should not be a matter of their being domestic servants or waiters, as was argued in the 1930s. This is a sign of the thinking of some Government Members. Instead of hon. Gentlemen suggesting how people can earn their living in the jobs for which they have been trained, the point is dismissed, as it was in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
The other point that worries hon. Members is the danger that the Government's policies, as a result of further cuts in public expenditure, will mean that unemployment benefit will not increase in line with prices.
This will mean great hardship for the unemployed. The difficulties faced by them and their families should not be forgotten. There can be no justification for further attacks on their living standards. Should the Cabinet come to the conclusion which we expect, that unemployment benefit after this year will not be increased in line with inflation, I hope that Conservative Members who say that they are concerned about unemployment will join the Opposition in the Lobby to express their protests against such mean and vindictive actions.
Under the Government, Britain has for the first time suffered an adverse balance of payments in manufactured goods. Manufacturing industry has been especially hard hit, and the larger share of the burden has fallen on the west midlands.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not a fact that had those figures showing the extraordinary historic development that for the first time we imported more manufactured goods than we exported—the great manufacturing country of the world, the one with the great traditional history of breaking new ground in this area—appeared when a Labour Government were in office, the political parasites of the press, who support the Government come hell or high water, would have made mincemeat of the Labour Government. They failed to do that in this case, with their pandering to Government policies.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend, in his characteristically colourful way—

Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend should forget all that and just agree.

Mr. Winnick: —has made his comment, with which, of course, I agree. If that type of thing had happened under a Labour Government, it would have been mentioned constantly by the media.
Manufacturing investment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) said, is at its lowest since 1959. Capital needed for investment has gone overseas. I well remember the Government's first and second Budgets, when the rich were given tax cuts. The explanation for that was that those people responsible for investment had to be galvanised into action and given incentives. What sort of incentive has been given to the west midlands, where manufacturing investment has been so low? What will we be left with when North sea oil runs out if the manufacturing sector continues to shrivel? Urgent steps are needed to try to remedy the position.
The Opposition are criticised sometimes for not being enthusiastic about the appointment of a Minister with responsibility for the west midlands. There is nothing personal about it. If the Cabinet makes decisions which

cause great hardship to people in the west midlands and the black country, what is the use of the Minister spending two or three days or more in the west midlands? He may go around saying this and that and giving encouragement, but whatever he says is undermined by the Cabinet's decisions, which are the cause of the hardship and difficulties which we are discussing. I believe that positive steps are necessary. They are far more important than the Minister spending two or three days in the region.
There must be a more realistic exchange rate to enable this country to export successfully. Much harm has been caused—the redundancies and plant closures which have been mentioned—in the past three or four years by an unrealistic exchange rate.
We must have a restriction on the flood of imported goods, such as motor car components, similar to the restrictions placed on British exports. We have been a soft touch for too long. It is time that we recognised the need for a ceiling on imports if there is to be any industrial revival. Countries such as Spain have introduced certain restrictions and I believe that we must do the same, because much of the unemployment in the west midlands has resulted from the flood of imports.
There has been insufficient investment in this country, and therefore I believe that exchange control must be restored. We have been starved of the manufacturing investment which is essential for the well-being of the west midlands. The abolition of exchange control must take a share of the blame for that. It has almost provided a direct incentive for the export of capital. People are encouraged to invest abroad instead of in this country. Holders of capital believe that they are likely to receive a better return on their money in those countries where trade unions are almost non-existent. Restrictions on the export of capital are necessary. Above all, we need some demand in the economy, because without that demand and reflation we shall not see any progress in the west midlands. That must be obvious to everyone.
If the cuts in public expenditure, about which the Cabinet seem to be coming to a conclusion, and about which there is a great deal of speculation in the press, occur, they will further damage the economy, add substantially to the unemployment and undermine—this should not be forgotten — a number of private companies. A proper construction drive would help the economy, and would certainly boost demand.
One of the things that is necessary to overcome the acute housing shortage in the west midlands is the building of council dwellings. In my borough, no new contracts for council dwellings have been entered into since 1979. When these matters are raised at Question Time with the Secretary of State for the Environment and his team, we are told that the figures for house building are somewhat better than they were last year. However, I have here a quote from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. It is likely that other hon. Members have received this letter in this morning's post, and not just Labour Members either.
Bruce Chivers, the president of the federation says:
I am particularly disturbed to note that after a brief recovery in the Spring, enquiries for public housebuilding and public works have once again deteriorated. Any further cuts in public construction expenditure would severly damage the industry and the employment prospects it offers and would jeopardise our chances of seeing any significant recovery in construction output this year.


Like Mr. Chivers, I take the view that the construction of houses, improvements and modernisation would not only do good, but would help the construction industry and the economy generally. It would provide as well housing for those who are desperately in need.
In my borough we have a waiting list of abour 14,000 to 15,000, and I am sure that the position is similar in other parts of the west midlands. Building work would also improve houses, many of which are pre-war dwellings, and the longer they stay as they are the more expensive it will be in the long run to carry out necessary repair works and modernisation. It would also provide many job opportunities for those in the construction and allied trades within the private sector. If houses are built, much other work is necessary, all done by the private sector, for things such as furniture, fittings and the rest. A boost such as this would do the economy of the west midlands a great deal of good.
The debate serves one purpose. It will not resolve any of our problems and difficulties, because to a large extent that is in hands of the Cabinet. We have however, a duty and a responsibility to ventilate our grievances and the difficulties of our constituents. The fact that the west midlands has an unemployment rate higher than the national average, and that that has occured since 1979, must not be forgotten. Our increase in unemployment has been highest in the United Kingdom, and that it is an indictment of Government ecomonic policy and its effects on the west midlands.
The Labour party will do its utmost to raise these issues time and again, because we believe that it is necessary to do so to get the important revival in the economy. If that revival occurs, the first beneficiaries will be the people in the west midlands.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate to make my maiden speech. I cannot say that it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but it is a pleasure. He will not be surprised to learn that I do not share his enthusiasm either for the seige economy or for the building of more council houses whose rents will be further subsidised by the ratepayers.
It is a rare and great privilege for me to come to this House as the representative of a part of this great kingdom of ours. This, the Mother of Parliaments, with its somewhat strange customs evolved over seven centuries, has brought forth men and women who have shaped the course of history. It has set a pattern for other nations to follow, it is admired by our friends throughout the free world, and it is looked upon with great envy by those who labour under the heel of Marx and other totalitarian Governments.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I should prefer not to be interrupted. The hon. Member has already done his share of interrupting. So far I have not had even a maiden heckle.
I am sure that I am not alone in feeling a great sense of pride at being elected to this House—a pride which I hope is tempered by humility and the consciousness that 67,000 people look to me to represent their interests in this place. Above all, it is the attainment of a goal. As Alexis de Tocqueville said in the middle of the 19th century,

There is a thirst for political rights and a craving to take part in public affairs which seem to torment Englishmen throughout their lives.
Many wives and girlfriends of aspiring politicians will recognise that syndrome only too well.
I have the honour to represent the new Staffordshire constituency of Cannock and Burntwood which is bordered by the A5 to the south and Cannock Chase to the north. For those hon. Members who are still lost, it lies just to the right of the Hilton Park service area near junction 11 on the M6. The constituency is composed of part of the former Cannock and Rugeley constituency and the Burntwood part of the former Lichfield and Tamworth constituency. It also encompasses the communities of Hednesford, Heath Hayes, Norton Canes, Cannock Wood, Chase Terrace, Chasetown and Hammerwich.
From 1974, Cannock and Rugeley were represented by Gwilym Roberts who, by all accounts, was a diligent servant of his constituents. He will be remembered by the House as the first hon. Member whose thoughts were broadcast to the nation on the popular wireless programme, "Order, Order" which became a full-time feature of the House in 1978.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) paid a kindly tribute to Gwilym Roberts in The Times, referring to him as
a necessary eccentric, championing left-handed victim of antisinisteralism.
As one with physical rather than political sinisteralistic tendencies, I hope that Mr. Roberts will continue outside the House to fight the left-handed fight.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) in paying tribute to my other predecessor, my energetic hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). So carefully did he till the soil in Burntwood that my constituents continue to write to him, imagining that he is still their Member of Parliament. I wish to thank him for all that he did to assist me in coming to this place and for giving me of his great knowledge of the part of his former constituency that I now represent.
I will spare the House a lengthy description of my constituency. Suffice it to say that it has changed in recent years from an area dominated by coalmining to ore in which light manufacturing industry provides up to 40 per cent. of employment. Lucas, Bowmaker and Durapipe all have facilities in the constituency, as does Fletcher International which, unlikely though it may sound, manufactures power boats 70 miles from the sea.
Former pit sites have given way to attractive modern housing estates where much of the population commutes to other parts of the west midlands, and new industrial units have been promoted by the local authority and by private developers. Compower a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Coal Board and the major NCB computer operation, now provides services to private companies as well as playing an important role in training young and not-so-young people in the area. The nature of the constituency is thus constantly changing to meet the challenge of the 1980s.
My constituency is surrounded by beautiful heart of England countryside. Cannock Chase to the north was formerly a royal hunting forest and in 1958 was declared an area of outstanding natural beauty. Sadly, it is better known to the popular mind as the scene of certain darker deeds.
As many hon. Members know, and as has been mentioned many times today, the west midlands has been especially hard hit by the recession. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, unemployment in the Walsall travel-to-work area, which covers my constituency, is now 17·5 per cent., compared with 15 per cent. in the region as a whole and 12·5 per cent. nationally.
As I have said, however, my constituency is used to change. It has adjusted to the closure of exhausted mines without a great deal of fuss or public demonstration, and I believe that the indomitable spirit of its people will see it through the present period of difficulty. The midlanders are straightforward, sensible, people. Not only were they sensible in the recent general election, but the people of Cannock have a knack of producing somewhat unexpected results. In 1970, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) upset the applecart by his famous victory with a majority of more than 1,000 votes over Miss Jennie Lee. He came to speak for me during the recent campaign and I have no doubt that his help secured what I hope was an equally famous victory in 1983.
The people of my constituency and of the west midlands in general know that Governments have no money of their own but only what they raise through taxation or borrowing. Their understanding of that truth was, I believe, made clear by the recent election result. They know, too, that real jobs will exist only if we produce goods that people are prepared to buy, at prices that they are prepared to pay, and if we deliver those goods on time.
I must tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North that jobs are being created in the west midlands, and indeed in his constituency. If his memory goes back as far as the heady days of the election campaign, he will recall that he and I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a British lighting factory in his constituency, promoted by a constituent of mine. I grant him that that has not created 1,000 jobs, but it is creating five or 10 jobs, perhaps 15 if it goes well. It produces a good product. It has the backing of British money through the British banking system. So far as I am aware, there is no Government handout involved. It has the backing of commercial money and is an example of private enterprise working in partnership to produce a British product for sale overseas.
The small and medium sized firms in my constituency know what is required for survival. They have cut out overmanning and other frills and are now fit and ready to see off the competition. To give one example of cutting frills, I walked through the main door of a company recently to find that there was no secretary or receptionist but merely a telephone with a sign asking visitors to dial the number given. That firm knows how to cut its garment according to its cloth.
People in the west midlands are not asking for Government handouts or special status. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North and indeed Conservative Members have said, the people of the west midlands want fair trade and even-handedness by Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who with other hon. Members has said that the enterprise zones are merely another distortion in the United Kingdom's investment and trading pattern and that they must cease as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State attended the industrial exhibition "Expo 1983" at Cannock earlier this month. He will have seen the enthusiasm of the local industry, without the support of such things as an enterprise zone, which supported that exhibition. I hope that he will work to ensure that the siren voices of other hard-pressed areas in the Kingdom do not prevail.
There is, however, a role for Government in all this. There are many schemes to which the Under-Secretary has drawn attention on his visits to the west midlands. Those have been brought to the attention of companies that perhaps were not aware of the real but relatively inexpensive aid that is available to industry. Industrialists also want hard evidence that the Government are putting their own house in order by taking the kind of tough decisions that are taken in the factories and offices every day. They want to see government leaner and fitter, just as government wish to see industry leaner and fitter.
The first priority must be to continue the reduction of public spending, followed by a reduction in the tax burden. High public spending is invariably an inefficient use of the nation's resources. It imposes burdens on the wealth creators and drives up the cost of money. The CBI has calculated that each 1 per cent. reduction in interest rates is worth £300 million to industry. I therefore find it wholly and utterly irresponsible for the Opposition continually to say that they want to see a lower value for sterling. They will never say how far they want it to go down, nor will they spell out the consequences of that policy.
We are a trading nation. We import goods and raw materials that we turn into finished products. If we depress the price of sterling, we simply push up the cost of our products and basic materials. Such a policy is entirely irresponsible, and perhaps one day the Opposition will give the figure. But, whatever they say, they are unlikely to have the same disastrous effect on the foreign exchange market as did the shadow Chancellor, who last November called for a 30 per cent. depreciation in sterling, because they are unlikely to influence the level of sterling for the foreseeable future.
Secondly, we must continue to reduce the role of government. I warmly welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that further efforts will be made towards denationalisation. I hope that he will consider urgently the proposals of professors Beesley and Littlechild in the Lloyds Bank Review, who have suggested that we should examine seriously the possibility of introducing private capital into the electricity generating industry, British Railways, the coal industry and the Post Office.
Thirdly, as well as reducing the tax burden, which I believe to be a high priority, we must simplify the tax system. The system is relatively simple for the standard PAYE taxpayer, but there is far too much complexity for those engaged in their own businesses, as I am now discovering in my new position as a Member of this House. The complexity of the system is quite unacceptable and must be simplified during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Fourthly, we must continue to make progress towards a framework of responsible trade union law, to create the conditions in which both sides of industry can combine to create wealth rather than to hand business over to our competitors as a result of restrictive practices. That was


mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). We must continue down that road.
Although some of our problems may be self-inflicted, many of them are the result of the lack of orders from overseas because of the downturn in world trade. When the pick-up comes, we must be ready to meet the demand for our goods and services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) so ably pointed out, that will not happen if, through well-intentioned but misguided regional policy, we starve the heartland of British industry of its share of private capital.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) would be both amazed and alarmed if I congratulated him on the contents of his speech. However, I congratulate him on having made his maiden speech. He spoke with enthusiasm about those matters in which he believes. I shall give him a friendly word of advice—for which, of course, he did not ask. He will have his work cut out in the Cannock part of his constituency in following my former colleague, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, who so diligently served his constituency and the House—albeit at times with a certain eccentricity.
The economy is primarily about people. It is not about money, profit or productivity. I profoundly believe that the economy should be the servant of the people, not vice versa. It should be about—although it is not—how the skills and talents of people are being developed and used to achieve an economy that enables us all to live with hope and dignity.
Manufacturing industry in Birmingham and the remainder of the west midlands, once the heartland of such industry, has been turned into a wasteland. Men and women floating around in Erdington never expect to work again. Youngsters go from school to the dole queues at the ages of 16 and 17. They never expect to work. That is one of the realities of life in the west midlands. The pride has been knocked out of and taken away from the west midlands, It has been turned from one of the most prosperous areas in the country four years ago to the least prosperous now.
In my constituency, as elsewhere in the west midlands, for every one person jobless in 1979 there are now three. There are 46 unemployed people chasing every lone job vacancy. At one school, about half of the pupils in one form have both parents out of work. That is the real world of the west midlands. Out of every 100 school leavers who walked out of the school gates a year ago, 17 found work, 24 joined the dole queue, 38 were massaged off it into special schemes and 21 went into higher and further education. The prospects are worse this year because more firms have closed and the numbers being allowed into higher and further education are, by edict of the Government, being cut.
It is no wonder then that the Minister told me in a written reply on 19 July, when I asked for an estimate of what would happen to this year's school leavers:
I am not in a position to make a forecast for 1983."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 90.]
A more honest answer would have been, "We dare not make a forecast." The unanswered question of the last election from those standing for the Conservative party

was, "When will unemployment come down'?" Neither here nor outside has any member of the Tory party even guessed at a date.
The Government are learning, although not vet admitting, that it is financially and socially unacceptable to continue to add to the dole queue. It wastes the talents and energies of people and means that the dwindling number left in work have to pay more for poorer services, which have to be cut and cut again— as will happen before this year is out.
Rising unemployment in the west midlands, particularly in manufacturing, means a falling home demand which undermines the base from which the rest of our manufacturing sector is expected to export. One has only to walk round the west midlands to read the names on the industrial tombstones. I refer to Pressed Steel Fisher, which has closed, where 7,000 jobs have gone; Lucas—20,000 jobs gone; Dunlop—15,000 jobs gone: GKN—17,000 jobs gone. Partly because of falling profits here under this Government, partly because of the devastation of the economy and partly because exchange controls have been removed, companies such as Dunlop, Lucas and GKN have invested heavily abroad. More simply, they have exported jobs.
Fears persist in the west midlands that Dunlop plans to end car production at the fort, with a loss of up to 1,000 jobs. That company, belatedly, has undertaken to consider and respond to proposals by the General and Municipal Workers Union about the future of the fort, possibly by the end of July. It does not help when workers at Dunlop are offered a zero pay rise while the chairman of the company and president of the CBI receives a 21 per cent. pay rise. Such job losses cannot continue. No adequate manufacturing base will be left when the Prime Minister's recovery happens. There will be no Phoenix—just the ashes.
Fewer cars being made and sold in Britain means fewer tyres and fewer British-made components. The trade unions and the British Automotive Parts Promotion Council have said that that industry has sacked 46 per cent. of its work force in the last three years.
I hope that neither the Minister nor Government Back Benchers will claim that they can now see light at the end of this dismal tunnel. There is no real prospect of that—only of worse. Why is that? I shall give two brief examples. The Government announced, on the last day that the House sat before the election, that they planned to flog British Leyland as a whole or in bits. That cheats the taxpayer of a proper return on the capital invested to put BL right after the bungling and neglect of the former private owners. That is not my verdict; that is the verdict of the then Under-Secretary when he spoke in a debate on unemployment in the west midlands on 26 February this year. He talked of
the lack of sufficient new models to beat the competition and meet consumer preference here and abroad". — [Official Report, 26 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 812.]
What a glowing testament to the former bungling, private owners of British Leyland and other parts of the motor industry on which the west midlands relies so heavily.

Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman is laying the blame for the motor industry's decline on management. What about trade unions, restrictive practices, feather bedding and lack of productivity? What about the measures that successive Governments, many of them Labour, have introduced to weld the industries together


and to make them into one big organisation? Let us remember Mr. Tony Benn's attitude. He said, "Get them all together and make them big."

Mr. Corbett: I am a simpleton in these matters. I thought that the shareholders, directors and managers were responsible for managing the businesses that they are paid to run. Clearly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) takes a different view. Perhaps he is advocating a vast extension of industrial democracy so that everyone in an enterprise is involved. If there is a slight chance of better decisions, I am in favour of that.

Mr. Park: Does my hon. Friend accept that the trade unions do not have the sanction of introducing new models? That is a matter for management. Therefore, as there have not been sufficient new models in the past, that must be the responsibility of management.

Mr. Corbett: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Recent history, not only at British Leyland but primarily in that company, will remind the House that the unions were constantly knocking at the door of management pleading for more money to be put into research and development. The unions could see what was happening, apparently long before management.
The economy of the west midlands will get worse rather than better in the short term for another reason. The Secretary of State for Social Services has now been ordered to sack 6,000 to 8,000 doctors, norses and ancillary workers by March of next year. How many of those sackings will be in the west midlands? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, a west midlands Member, is nut in his place, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to answer that question. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Prime Minister, during the election, say that the National Health Service "is safe with us". Perhaps the Prime Minister simply meant only until 10 June. I now trust that the right hon. Gentleman will offer up his own job before he agrees to a single sacking in the National Health Service following these latest instructions.
Of course, there is a better way to proceed in these matters. We have a chance in the west midlands to learn from what was done just over 100 years ago in Birmingham by the father of radical pre-Thatcherite Toryism. Joseph Chamberlain actually used ratepayers' money—not even taxpayers' money—to take over the electricity and gas supplies. Then he took over the tramways, built Corporation street, littered the city with art galleries and libraries and cleared the slums. That was not the end of it. He then went back to the electorate in Birmingham and held a poll. There was a dear scheme and a cheap scheme for building reservoirs in the Elan valley to ensure plentiful supplies of fresh water for the city of Birmingham. He persuaded the ratepayers of that farsighted and radical city—that it must be, because it has a majority of Labour Members—

Mr. Roger King: Just.

Mr. Corbett: Never mind "just"—one is enough. He persuaded the ratepayers of the city to vote for the biggest of the two schemes.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Corbett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
There were those who, like some today, went around saying, "We cannot afford it." Joseph Chamberlain told them:
A corporation that is afraid to borrow is too timid to do its duty.
That applies to the Government today.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, had the Prime Minister been around at the time, she would have denounced Joseph Chamberlain as a notorious municipal Socialist and argued strongly that the schemes he was putting forward on a municipal basis could well be done by the private sector?

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right. I dare say that there are occasions when that old gentleman spins around in his coffin amd tries to work out what has happened to the Tory party since he left it. He did not volunteer to leave —he was called away from it.
We need a partnership of public and private money with the full involvement of people at work to revitalise the manufacturing base in the west midlands, especially in vehicles and metal manufacturing, and to encourage the development of new industries. I do not believe that either the service sector or the small firms in the region will be able to provide the number of jobs that the region needs if we are to get people back to work. Nor do I think that there is a substitute for revitalising the manufacturing base. We need that manufacturing base. It is sited in the west midlands and it will be vital if and when the Prime Minister's recovery takes off. It is vital, not only for jobs, but in the national interest, that BL has the facility to develop a new engine range. About 50,000 jobs at Longbridge could be at stake. The matter is of such vital national importance that the decision is far too important to be left to a board of directors. The Government should have a say in the decision.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that ceilings should be imposed on the volume of car imports, and I should like to see the imposition of a specified majority of United Kingdom car components. The alternative is to turn us into mere assemblers of foreign products.
Government support is essential to re-establish a major British machine tool capacity, especially in numerical and computer-numerical tools. Profits have fallen too much under this Government and their predecessors for that to be done without public funds.
Construction can provide much-needed new jobs. We should be building new homes, renovating the pre and post-war homes that are falling into disrepair, emptying the hideous and structurally suspect tower blocks and ensuring reliable and efficient repairs in return for profit-making rents. Jobs and savings in energy conservation would be more than paid for in reduced national energy costs.
More than half of the jobs lost in manufacturing in the west midlands since 1965 have gone since 1979. That much must be laid at the door of the Government. More than seven out of every 10 lost jobs in the west midlands have been in metal bashing. Six jobs an hour—1,000 jobs a week—are being destroyed in the region. What a waste, what a record. The way to reverse it is there. Unhappily, with this destructive Government, the will is not.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) will not grumble if I do not follow him down the road that he signposted, though, if he was calling for a ceiling to be placed on imports of Japanese cars, I endorse that view.
We have had an interesting debate and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has, with his usual care, noted what has been said and that we shall have the benefit of his thoughts later.
The debate has been notable for the interesting maiden speeches of my hon. Friends he Members for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). They spoke with knowledge and obvious sincerity, and their constituents are fortunate to be represented by two such hard-working hon. Members. I am sure that the House will join me when I express the view that I am looking forward to further contributions from them.
The debate is principally about unemployment. It is fair to remind the House that, between 1979 and 1982, unemployment rose faster in the west midlands than in any other region. It literally trebled. In 1979, the west midlands was eighth in the league table of unemployment rates. It is now equal third with Wales, and behind only Northern Ireland and the north. The league table shows that in 1979 our region had 5·2 per cent. unemployment. It rose to 6·8 per cent. in 1980, more than doubled to 13·4 per cent. in 1981 and increased to 15·3 per cent. in 1982. So far this year, it is 15·4 per cent. The situation is appalling.
This if the first time that the west midlands has suffered unemployment on such a scale. To make matters worse, we have moved from relative affluence to real depression in about four years. The principal reason for that is the world depression, which has been fuelled by a 16-fold increase in the price of oil. The west midlands has felt the effects of the depression more than most, because we have always been an export-oriented region, not just in motor cars but in machines, engineering products, aircraft engines, fighting vehicles and tools of all sorts.
The west midlands was undoubtedly the toolroom of the world. But as demand eased throughout the world, so factories in the region began steadily to decline, and the decline was exacerbated by certain political decisions taken by Governments, who decided that we should not supply traditional markets, for example South Africa, with our products.
Other factors played a part in our industrial decline and many problems have been of our own making: the appalling labour relations that existed for so long across the whole region; overmanning, which made us uncompetitive; lack of productivity; resistance to new methods; poor management decisions; and a lack of investment. All have militated against the west midlands.

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman referred to hardship, affluence and over-manning. Can he explain how all of those could have operated together in one company, GEC in my constituency, where redundancies have been declared in recent weeks in two plants, short-time working has been introduced and the company has asked the Government for short-time subsidy, yet the firm has over

£1·1 billion in the bank made from the labours of its work force? How could overmanning have caused that amount of profit to accrue to the company?

Mr. Pawsey: That shows the error I made in giving way to the hon. Gentleman, an error that I shall not make again.
The reasons which I advanced a few moments ago are not the only reasons for our problems. Governments have not exactly done the west midlands many favours, either. For example, regional policies and IDCs ensured that jobs and factories left the area in a steady stream during the 1960s and 1970s. I have a theory which I have formulated as "Pawsey's law of government"—nothing is so bad that it cannot be made worse by well-intentioned Government interference — or, like hell, the way of Government, all Governments, is paved with good intentions.
Let us examine one facet of Government interference —regional policy—well-intentioned and designed to do good. This point was well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). Has regional policy any worth in today's employment climate? Does it create one extra job, with the possible exception of jobs found for those involved with the implementation of regional policy itself?
At best, regional policy simply moves jobs about the country, a form of musical chairs played with people, jobs and industries. At worst, it destroys jobs and industries. Regional policy is expensive, not just in funds but in factories and work. As currently structured, regional policy undermines areas like the west midlands.
The west midlands is still engineering-oriented. It has the skills, expertise and infrastructure needed to sustain it. It has the component manufacturers for the motor industry, the foundries and specialist press shops. But, far more important, it has the traditions and skills, a workforce that is geared to the demands of quantity production. All these are part of the same equation and they are all needed to ensure the success of the region and the industries in it. I doubt whether it is possible successfully to transfer any established industry from one region to another.
Mature transplants are not notoriously difficult. As regional policy is presently structured, it works against the west midlands. If all things were equal with all regions receiving similar grants and similar concessions, the west midlands would bloom. However, the competition is unfair, and even though it is unfair it is unsuccessful.
I shall quote some examples of just how unsuccessful regional policy is and remind the House of the major failures. There was the Invergordon smelter, the British Leyland plant at Speke, the Ford plant at Halewood, the Fort William paper mill, the famous judgment of Solomon in 1958 by which new steel strip mills were built in Scotland at Ravenscraig and in Wales at Port Talbot, the attempts to save shipbuilding in the Clyde and the decision to force Inmos to locate its production plant at Newport rather than Bristol. My favourite example is Linwood. A car factory was taken from Coventry and that decision gave us a production line that was about 500 miles long. That flew in the face of common sense and geography. It is significant that Linwood has folded along with many of the other examples that I have quoted.
I do not argue against aid for industry, but I argue against aid that is based on geography. There may be


reasons for providing aid for specific industries, and it is worth while recalling that £1 billion of aid has been provided to Leyland, but aid does not have to be in the form of a grant. It could be in the form of specific tax concessions. It could, for example, allow companies to recover the VAT that is paid on company cars and it should be remembered that most company cars are British and made in this country. Lower corporation tax could be directed to specific industries. The special car tax could be removed. We could even introduce certain forms of rate relief.
Industry exists to produce goods that people want at prices that they can afford. There does not seem to be much point in shoring up industries that are producing items that are not required, for sooner or later, despite the good intentions, those industries will fail and jobs will be lost. The job losses are not confined to the outdated industries. They extend to the weakened industries in the midlands that have been bled white over the past 10 years.
The west midlands requires a new look. In transport, for example, the M40 programme should be accelerated and brought forward, as should the A1-M4 link. The former programme would reduce the appalling congestion which we all know exists on the Ml. This congestion leads to many delays and fatal accidents. The construction of a clear route to the east ports would assist our manufacturing industries. These schemes would also help the construction industry. They would provide much-needed jobs, and real jobs at that.
A new look is needed at ways of encouraging inventiveness and bringing it to profitable fruition. In helping industries to have a future, and that certainly includes the motor industry.
I end on an optimistic note by quoting from a CBI newsletter which we received only today. It is perhaps because it was received only today that Labour Members have studiously avoided mentioning it. It states:
for five successive months firms' expectations have pointed to increasing output …
Both total and export order books have improved slightly confirming the strengthening of demand apparent in recent Surveys.
It is not, therefore, all doom and gloom. Matters are beginning to improve and those who have eyes to see can discern that improvement. In the Business News, The Sunday Times yesterday quoted a survey that has been produced by Metalworking Production which showed that many new numerical control machines are being installed.
It said:
it is an unexpected story of industrial revival rather than decay.
That is the phrase that I should like to leave uppermost in the minds of hon. Members. It is good news for industry, the west midlands and for the country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that there are still a few hon. Members who want to catch my eye and that the Opposition Front Bench hopes to catch my eye at 12.22 am.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: One can hardly describe the hon. Member for Rugby—

Mr. Pawsey: Rugby and Kenilworth.

Mr. Faulds: Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)— I should not have forgotten that historic area that he also misrepresents. The hon. Gentleman is hardly a maiden speaker in these debates as those of us who have been here for some time have a sense of déjà vu about it. We have been over this course time and again in the past four or five years.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth spent most of the time repeating the long litany of disasters that have befallen the west midlands in the past few years. He used the phrase, "absolutely appalling" which is an indictment of the Government's record. He was even more specific and said that the decline had happened in the past four years. I welcome such honesty from Conservative Members, because they usually try to evade the facts of the case and pretend that there is a long history of decline in the west midlands. There is some truth in that argument, but it is minute. Most of the decline has been a direct result of the Government and its previous incarnation.
I should really be in bed at such an advanced hour as I am an elder and distinguished statesman. However, I have resisted the temptation that bed often presents to me and decided to make my contribution to the debate. During 17 years, I have seen the most appalling change in the industrial and economic climate of the west midlands. When I first moved into the remarkable, interesting, arresting and lively area of Smethwick, it had one of the best industrial, economic and employment records in the country. The unemployment rate was 1·6 per cent. Someone who lost a job or wanted to change jobs in Smethwick just went round the corner and got another one. There was no problem. There was massive employment opportunity in the area.
Seventeen years later and after four years of Conservative policy — the Friday before the recent general election—male unemployment in my part of Smethwick was 20 per cent. Nobody could have conceived a collapse of that dimension a few years before the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) took over the office of Prime Minister. That decline is a measure of the disaster that she has wrought. All experienced and inexperienced Conservative Members know that it is true that the west midlands is one of the areas that has suffered the greatest disaster, directly because of the policies of this and the previous Government.
Some of us, in our usual frank and honest way, pointed out many years ago while some Conservative Members were still in their blue romper suits at whatever public schools they went to—I exclude, of course, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who was wearing other types of garb—

Mr. Winnick: Minor public schools, I should have thought.

Mr. Faulds: Possibly, I do not inquire into the history of these gentlemen because I do not find them interesting except as fodder for whatever policies the Government demand their support for.

Mr. Roger King: Get on with it.

Mr. Faulds: I shall get on with it in my own time. I have plenty of time—about one hour—in which to speak.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Faulds: Of course—to any lady.

Mrs. Currie: Like most Opposition Members, I went to a grammar school.

Mr. Faulds: That may be why the hon. Lady speaks more sense than some of her colleagues.
As I was trying to say when I was so pleasantly interrupted, some of us were putting forward the argument many years ago that the main problem with west midlands industry was its near total dependence on the motor car industry—[Interruption.] That is not a new fact. Some of us were saying as much when these youngsters had not yet realised a few of the political facts of life. The unfortunate fact is that too many hon. Members on both sides of the House still emphasise that dependence in their speeches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who had the good luck to introduce this debate, still seemed to over emphasise, the importance of retaining the car industry as one of main economic and industrial factors in the west Midlands. We have heard that from both sides of the House. It is a most unfortunate view.
It is nonsense to believe that we in Britain can any more command the world markets in terms of car production. That simply is not on, for a number of reasons. I shall not rehearse the whole lot, but there are one or two obvious ones. First, there is the production in the new industrial countries. I do not think that enough hon. Members are aware that a number of the new industrial countries are producing massive numbers of motor cars. Japan is not the only example. South Korea and India cannot be forgotten. Many of us disregard India, but it is now one of the great industrial countries in the world. Those countries are producing cars at much lower labour costs than we can produce them. We shall never beat those producers with our more expensive labour costs, or with the in many ways much better cars that we still make in Britain.
There is another factor. The international operations of the multi-nationals mean that the production of cars is spread over several countries. Assembly is done with bits of components from a number of different countries. Therefore, there is no way that Britain will ever again command the world market in motor cars. The sooner that we accept that, the healthier for west midlands industry.

Mr. Roger King: Surrender.

Mr. Faulds: It is not irrelevant—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have misheard.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but—

Mr. Faulds: I was giving way to the other hon. Gentleman, who seemed to want to say something.

Mr. Roger King: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I did not wish the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to give way. I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was more or less implying that the motor industry should surrender, pack up and go home. If that is so, where will all the jobs come from?

Mr. Faulds: If the hon. Gentleman had contained his impatience for a moment or two longer he would have heard me explain what I think should happen. I shall shortly proceed to do that. I am not advocating surrender for the production of the motor car. There are types of

motor car that we can produce better than most other countries. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening with the attention that he should have paid to the speech of an elder hon. Member he would have known that the idea is that our production of motor cars cannot command the world market as it used to do. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Government Front Bench would dispute that. Anybody who wants to dispute that is simply flying in the face of the facts.
I do not want to go into too great detail, because at 12·2 am my advanced years tell me of the need for some rest. However, I want briefly to rehearse the factors that should be considered when deciding what is needed in our approach to the industrial and employment problems of the west midlands. I shall now answer directly the point raised by the hon. Member for Northfield, who was kind enough to refer to me as his hon. Friend. Perhaps a happy relationship will develop over the years. I think that it was a little premature and somewhat impertinent of the hon. Gentleman to address me in those terms, but we have to live with such things.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman is a bit tatty at the edges.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Lady wish to say something? If she does not wish to say anything, I suggest that she keeps silent, and she may then learn. This is a very serious problem and I am sorry that it is being treated with such levity at this hour. Some of us have been saying for many years that what is needed is massive Government investment in the advanced technologies. The west midlands will not get lift off until that happens. Sadly, unless the Minister can convince the Government to the contrary, the Government will not pursue that policy. Until—like all the advanced countries—we get that massive investment in the advanced industries, the health of the west midlands will not be revived. That is the first point.
We have also made the second point for many years. I refer to the ridiculous concentration on the production of what is increasingly becoming an outdated product. We should diversify into several other industries. There is far too much reliance on a limited supply of certain components connected with certain products. We have not yet done that, but I do not blame only this Government for it. Other Governments are to blame, because we should have started that policy many years ago.
Not nearly enough effort has been made, whether out of political embarrassment or lack of knowledge, to collect the moneys available from the European Community that could help to improve industrial and economic life, and the employment prospects, of the west midlands. I agree with some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey—[Interruption.] There are so many Members in this enlarged House of Commons that it is easy to forget even one's oldest friends. I do not agree with the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of import restrictions. That is nonsense, and one would be defending British industry from healthy competition. However, I strongly support his argument about the need to restrict the export of capital. It is nonsensical that we should provide money for jobs abroad when we need every penny that we can get for jobs in Britain.
As a final point in what I believe we should do about the problems of the west midlands, we should make much


more use of the tourist potential of the area. I know that some hon. Members would giggle at that, and would wonder what tourist potential the west midlands has. It has enormous tourist potential. Not everyone wishes to look at pretty boys dancing in ballet. Some people wish to see the industrial history of Britain, which is packed tight in the west midlands. There are many museums and industrial archaeological set-ups. People will wish to come from the four corners of the world to see where some of those industries blossomed, and nowhere is better than places such as Dudley and Smethwick. This is a Government responsibility, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who seems to be nodding—I am glad that he has raised his head—will argue with the Government that there is a need for investment in the tourist industry.
There must be investment in hotels. Those of us who occasionally have to stay in the hotels in the region do not always have the happiest tales to tell about the nights that we have spent or the food that we have eaten. We must provide much more support—this is a larger debate than we can have tonight—for the museums and art galleries of the area, for people who want such enlightenment or uplift if they come on a trip from Japan or the United States. It is a fallacy to believe that the west midlands is packed with dark dungeons and factories. There are many green places in the west midlands, and many lovely old villages throughout the area. The Government must consider what they can do to help the organisations that are trying to increase the tourist potential of the midlands.
The Under-Secretary of State is profoundly worried about the unemployment and the prospects of employment in the west midlands.
He has a genuine conviction about his job, but if he wishes to have any practical effect—if he wants his job to have any meaning — he must be very tough and bloody-minded with the members of his Government, because they will not listen to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the help needed in the west midlands to create job opportunities, to revive industries and to set up new industries. He will have no success in that unless he changes the entire philosophical approach of the Government. Much as I admire him personally, I believe that he has a big job on his hands with that phalanx of people who are absolutely convinced of the rightness of the ideological commitment to the lunacies of monetarism. I wish him well, but he has a job on his hands.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am discarding notes in an effort to speed the proceedings. I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on the tourist thesis, but if I did that I would be tempted to persuade hon. Members to go not to the delights of Smethwick but to the older and more historic climes of Yardley where arrows have been sharpened along the base of the church.
We are talking mainly about industrial matters. I add my tribute to the excellent maiden speeches that have been made this evening by my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who

has returned to the Chamber, which is more than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has done. He was unkind enough during the penultimate debate in a spate of industrial debates on the west midlands, to say that I would not be in this Chamber to take part in the next debate on this subject. I am here. I congratulate all the maiden speakers.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is standing in the Gangway, which is out of order. Will he step back into his proper place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know whether I stand corrected by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Warley, East sits at the top of the Gangway on every occasion. I shall try to keep within my place. However, I must not be deterred from saying some of the things that I feel are salient to this debate.
There is an abundance of skilled workers in Yardley and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who made an excellent first speech. He referred to the policies of the Government and their predecessors, whose representatives have ignored one of the real factors which resulted in the decimation of the west midlands. For over 38 years the leeches sucked the blood out of the iron heart of England and made that area anaemic. The taxpayers' money was spent in every area, except the west midlands. The policies of successive Governments, mainly Labour Governments, created that condition.
One newspaper has been unkind enough to say that these debates are a waste of time. I should be inclined to agree if they were just hot air. Debates should encourage the Government to do something.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the Minister with responsibility for the west midlands, for the excellent initiatives that he has taken in the short time that he has been doing this job. Having known him for some years, I know the dedication with which he has tackled this problem. I know that he will attempt to see that everything necessary is done.
It is academic to argue whether we receive the same money under sections 7 or 8 of the Industrial Act as other areas. What matters is that we receive money to regain parity with areas which were once weak and are now strong and return to a position of pre-eminence and wealth in the west midlands.
It is nonsense to suggest opening science parks in green belt areas, although we obviously need more. I suggest using the numerous vacant factories in Yardley. Wilmot Breedens has now been razed to the ground. It is believed that the area will be denuded further with the loss of Lucas Girling in Kings row, Tyseley. That area, connected by railways, roads and canals to places such as the national exhibition centre, can provide factory sites. I hope that my hon. Friend will study the necessity to refurbish and reequip such factories. It is essential that he should use his influence to have the Rover works reopened for the economic well-being of the west midlands. They are just over the border of my constituency and employed many of my constituents.
Although numerous claims are made that the service industries are taking up some of the slack, they will not


provide the 460,000 jobs resulting from the youth training scheme or the 130,000 jobs from the community programme. Only manufacturing industry will do that.
Almost the only point with which I agreed in the speech of the hon. Member for Erdington was that the traditional heavy industrial and metal-bashing skills of the west midlands must be retained.
There must be a capital programme As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and I said some years ago, the motorway infrastructure must be finished, the railways must be modernised and the crumbling sewers, put in at the instigation of Clamberlain and his predecessors about 120 years ago, must be replaced. After all that has been done, will my hon. Friend persuade his ministerial colleagues at the Treasury to study the banking sector to see whether the schemes designed to help small businesses, which have increased from 86 to about 103, are progressing as they should. I suggest that the 80 per cent. guarantees being given by the Government are not being applied by all banks in the same way. Some of the clearing banks are good; others which are poor and appear low in the star rating, do not wish to improve. Even though the Government are prepared to guarantee the money, those banks are not implementing the schemes. Therefore, entrepreneurial skills in small businesses are not being exploited to the maximum. Some ban managers do not want the bother of filling in forms and making returns to the Government.
Will the Minister consider all these matters so that he can make an impact—as I am sure he will—in ensuring that prosperity returns to the west midlands?

Mr. Hal Miller: I should like to try to bring together some of the main themes of the debate for the benefit of the Front Bench spokesmen, who are about to reply to the debate.
First, it is necessary to nail the lie that all the problems have occurred since the election of a Conservative Government in 1979. The problems of the region and its dependence upon the motor industry were set out in reports of the economic planning council dating back some 20 years. It is therefore idle to suppose that this trouble has occurred suddenly. It is equally idle to deny that the position in the west midlands is serious. If I may recap: there are about 400,000 people out of work—about 1·2 times the national average—and about 43 per cent. of unemployed males have been unemployed for over a year. Disposable personal income is about 10 per cent. lower than in the rest of the country. I do not need to go on to emphasise the serious problems of which I know my hon. Friend is well seized.
We have to consider the remedies that we should be urging on the Government. I listened to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). His suggestion of a reduction in the exchange rate was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) in a biting maiden speech. His idea of import controls was exposed by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who pointed out that the newly developed countries were engaged in motor manufacture. His idea about exchange controls was exposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), whose speech lacked reference to animals in a e west midlands —I know of his concern for animals in politics. The idea that the exchange flows have contributed to

unemployment is badly misconceived, because factories such as GKN and Lucas had to invest abroad, where the modern car was being developed in Spain and America, to preserve design capacity and employment here. We can disregard the remedies offered by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
We should be considering other remedies. This debate is a continuation of the debate on Friday on regional industrial policy, in which west midlands Members forbore to take part, knowing that we had this opportunity this evening. Hon. Members representing constituencies in the north spoke of the themes to which we should be turning our minds. We want to stand on our own feet and we want the ability to compete, free from the distortions which the Government's regional industrial policies have introduced.
That theme was echoed by hon. Members from Yorkshire, Northumberland, Lancashire, Cumbria, and now from all over the west midlands. If our Government believe in market forces, why are we still lumbered with an out-of-date regional industrial policy which has been proved by the Department's analysis not to answer the real problems of regional disadvantage and deprivation?
I recognise that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said on Friday, the Government must have a regional aspect to all their policies, not just their industrial policy. On the ground of the figures that I have given, the west midlands must qualify for consideration in all Government policies. We wish to see industrial policy conducted on industrial, not geographical, lines. We recognise that there are regional disadvantages, but we would prefer to see them corrected through programmes under the auspices of the Department of Environment, such as derelict land clearance, the inner urban area partnershp programmes, which we hope will attract the EC funds for which we were told in March application was being made.
I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the Department of the Environment's scheme approved for the 1983–84 programmes, under which we have some £5·7 million approved for acquisition and reclamation of land, as opposed to some £20 million for the north-west and a total of £32 million for the whole country. This is the route that we should be pursuing—not blanket policies, but paying attention to the black spots and underdevelopment.
We are not just crying hurt in the west midlands. We are beginning to take a serious and positive view of our problems. The national exhibition centre to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, (Mr. King) referred is an example. There is also the setting up of the west midlands industrial development agency, which is the first industrial development agency to be privately led. We are not asking for Government funds and we are not looking for a public sector lead. We are doing something for ourselves. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the lead given by private firms and to the needs of the region.
I realise that to review and revise the Government's entire regional policy is a large undertaking and that to bring about the turnround that we wish to see will necessarily take a considerable time. I hope that the Minister will tell us that we may expect a White Paper in the autumn and a further period of consultation, during which all hon. Members will no doubt wish to state their views.
We look to the Minister for positive Government action to remedy our disadvantages, perhap by pre-production schemes. I believe that that is why his office was set up initially. I have often expressed my anxiety about the lack of take-up of support for innovation programmes in the west midlands. The Government must have a much more active public purchasing policy and greater emphasis is needed on research and development.
I urge the Minister to recognise the serious situation in the west midlands and the need for a change in Government regional industrial policy for which all sections of the country and not just the west midlands have called. That policy must be re-thought. While that is happening, we need some interim assistance to enable us to respond to the initiatives which the west midlands is taking.

Mr. Peter Archer: If the timetable which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, announced a few moments ago has slipped somewhat, that is probably well worth while. We have heard several interesting and helpful contributions to the debate, which has been characterised by two maiden speeches which were a great pleasure to hear. They were on a subject with which maiden speeches should be concerned—the future of the communities which the hon. Members represent. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) contributed his own experience to the debate. I do not necessarily share his recollection of the entire history of the matters that he related, but we all share his concern for a better future for our region.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), in an elegant contribution, expressed predict-able sentiments, if he will forgive my saying so. If he maintains the purity of his doctrinal approach, I predict a rosy future for him in the Government. I do not propose to enter into a controversy on everything that he said. He said that it was no use making goods unless people were prepared to buy them. That is perfectly true. Frequently the question is not whether people are prepared to buy the goods but whether they have the money to buy them. That is possibly what lies between our respective philosophies.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who so ably introduced the debate — I congratulate him on obtaining this opportunity — said that it was the third debate on the subject in recent times. I can enlighten him. To my recollection, it is the sixth debate in the past two or three years. The first was on 20 June 1980. At that time we referred to the problems of west midlands industries and asked the Government for help. The Government said that the problems of the west midlands did not all originate in 1979. That has been said more than once tonight, especially by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). The Government said that the problems originated from factors over which the Government had no control. Wishing to be realistic and fair, we agreed that there were some factors that could not be laid solely at the door of the Government.
I suspect that we were rather fairer than the Conservatives were when they were in Opposition. In 1979, when unemployment was 5·2 per cent. in the west midlands and 5·3 per cent. in the country as a whole, I recall an election poster portraying what purported to be

a dole queue—we discovered afterwards that it was in fact the Hendon, North Young Conservatives lined up for the cameras—with the legend, "Labour Isn't Working". In other words, when the Conservatives were in Opposition the clear implication was that when there is unemployment the Government are to blame. We try to be fairer than that and we acknowledge that some factors for which the Government are not responsible have helped to bring about unemployment.
One such factor has been mentioned several times in the debate. In the 1960s, the problems of the west midlands were those of an overheated economy. All the skilled workers were in jobs and there was a shortage of skilled workers. So much land was occupied by the industrial processes that there was a shortage of land. Successive Governments therefore encouraged industry to open in other regions and the system of industrial development certificates was introduced. I do not complain about that. I think that it probably made sense at the time. Nevertheless, it meant that new industries, including all the products that have recently been developed, went to other areas and the west midlands remained the region of older industries nesting on a narrow industrial base of vehicle building and metal working.
The west midlands is now paying the penalty for having been the birthplace of engineering. I accept the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that management in those days did not always respond appropriately. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) reminded us, however, the collapse has come in the past four years and there was every reason for the Government to give encouragement to those industries which sought to introduce new technology.
In the debate in June 1980 I referred to BSR in my constituency. It was the great success story of the decade, with superb management, modern technology and perfect co-operation from the work force and the unions. The firm could not be faulted. When the Government were looking for a success story for the Prime Minister to visit, they chose BSR. I asked the Government then to help BSR in what we hoped were temporary difficulties, and I took a deputation to the Department. Since that debate, two BSR factories in my constituency have closed. Jobs have gone, hopes have gone, pay packets which could have led to further employment in consumer goods have gone, and with them has gone a part of Britain's expertise and technology.
Another factor mentioned today which, it is suggested, cannot be laid at the Government's door is the world recession. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also mentioned this. Certainly, there has been a recession in the world— largely, I suspect, because many other Government have been pursuing the same monetarist policies as the British Government. But the United Kingdom has been losing its share of world trade. Unemployment here has been higher then in any other industrial country except Spain, and it has been increasing faster than in any other industrial country including Spain —at a time when we have the enormous advantage of North sea oil coming onstream.
As we have already been reminded, the consequence of dismantling exchange controls has been that British money is being invested in jobs abroad. In 1982 private


investment overseas rose to £10,000 million. With great respect to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, that figure is utterly unacceptable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) pointed out in an intervention, for the frst time since the industrial revolution the United Kingdom is importing more manufactured goods ban it is exporting. It cannot be alleged that all that is to do with the international recession and outside the Government's control.
It has also been said that new technology means that machines now do work that was once done by human beings so that unemployment is inevitable. It is true that machines are removing the need for drudgery, but that should be a blessing, not a problem. Perhaps within the next 20 years human needs will be met with very little human labour, but that is very different from the present problem. People are now eating out their hearts for work while human needs are not being met. Families come to me asking for more attractive housing or for repairs to be done to their homes while the construction industry is unemployed. Areas in my constituency are dreading the text storm because their drainage is inadequate. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) said, those who could be laying those drains are in frustrating idleness. Someone pointed to the need for a road to the east coast ports. The people who should be building it are idle. This is nothing to do with the new technology. That is a failure to match the need to the human resources available to meet it.
As for rates, no council wishes to impose an additional burden on industry at present because councils of all political complexions are conscious of the result on jobs. Changing the method of raising finance will not alter the necessity to finance local government services. The problem that local councils must face is that it is precisely at a time of high unemployment that local services are most urgently needed. That is when the pressure on families impose the greatest burden on the social services. That is when stress illnesses lead to the greatest need for health and domiciliary services. That is when time hangs most heavily on people's needs and, so, provision for leisure is necessary.
Local councils must preserve such balance as they can between imposing tax burdens on the domestic services and cutting services at the time of greatest hardship.
Ministers may be aware that the west midlands district councils of both political complexions have submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment a memorandum pointing out that the block grant formula operates to the disadvantage of west midlands authorities, at least those in the conurbation, because the rateable values were fixed in 1973 on evidence collected in 1972 At that time it was an area of high prosperity with substantial resources. People were competing to obtain industrial sites, and so values were high. The fault about rates lies not with the local councils, but the solution lies with the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will bring this matter to the attention of his right hon. Friend.
Here we are four years after that debate in June 1980, and five debates later, and many of those great companies that carried names such as Yardley, Cradley Heath, Smethwick, Oldbury, Walsall, and Birmingham are now gone. They carried those names around the world, wherever people talked about engineering, lifting gear, boilers or machine tools.
Among my earliest recollections as a child is living beneath the walls of the Patent Shaft steel works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). Perhaps my earliest recollection is the glow that lit up the sky across half the town when the furnaces were tapped. I drove past it yesterday, and it has gone as completely as though it had never existed. The whole area where generations of midlanders, including many of my relatives, earned their living and apprenticed their sons, has gone as far as the eye can see.
Along with it has come all the human misery about which my hon. Friends spoke so movingly — among school leavers who were beginning what they hoped would be their working lives but who now feel unwanted and are simply taking part in cosmetic projects; among the middle aged in their mid-50s, with little prospect of ever working again; and among ethnic minorities who find themselves at one and the same time unemployed and blamed for taking the jobs that ought to go to others.
One of the things that the Government could do to alleviate this misery is the 12-month rule. It made perfectly good sense at one period that when a man had been unemployed for 12 months, it was time he found another job and, therefore, his unemployment pay should cease. Now he has no opportunity of finding another job. After 12 months, he is driven to seek supplementary benefit. If he and his wife have managed to save something for their old age, that must evaporate before they are entitled to any money. All the misery consequent upon means-tested benefits is heaped on top of the trauma of losing one's job in the first place.
Now that 12 months have elapsed, a close constituent friend has been told that he cannot have supplementary benefit because he is in receipt of a service pension awarded because of wounds that he received in the second world war.
There has been no shortage of suggestions as to how the Government can help to alleviate the problems of the west midlands. The hon. Member for Northfield spoke of the unfair competition from Spain. We do not seek protectionism, but simply the insistence that if there is to be competition all horses shall carry the same weight. Many of the industries that compete with the west midlands are enjoying cheap fuel, tax concessions and a whole range of Government assistance that is being denied to industry in the west midlands. The hon. Member for Northfield mentioned the establishment of a free port at Birmingham airport, and I support that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) mentioned reduction of interest rates to make investment possible. My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and Warley, East mentioned the restoration of exchange controls to stop the haemorrhage abroad of British capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington spoke of a partnership of public and private money with public and private direction to provide investment in manufacturing, especially in vehicle components and machine tools. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East mentioned investment in the new advanced industries and the use of tourist attractions in the west midlands. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned the removal of car tax.
We cannot stimulate industry in the west midlands in isolation. I am asking the Government to set the unemployed to work, meeting the needs of human beings


by building houses, laying sewers and making roads. The money in their pockets will provide jobs for others. That may be said to be inflationary, but inflation arises when the money is available to spend but the goods are not there to be bought. And the reason why the goods are not available is that the money is not there to spend. If the money were available to spend, the goods would be available. That is not inflationary. That is what the west midlands enterprise board is seeking to achieve — to bring together the need, those who are awaiting an opportunity to work to meet it and the funds waiting to be invested to enable that to happen.
Had there been time, I would have mentioned to the Minister the problems arising from liquidations. A number of companies are in difficulties because their customers have been liquidated. We are still awaiting Government action on the Cork report. I shall return to that matter on another occasion.
I do not believe that, notwithstanding the CBI newsletter, industrialists in the west midlands believe that we are on the verge of an upturn. They have heard Ministers say that too often. Until they see other signs of recovery, and while they are hearing the comments of the west midlands chamber of commerce, they will not begin to invest, take on labour, support training, offer apprenticeships or stock up with components. It is a matter of confidence. The Government must begin to alleviate the total despair in the west midlands. The first job for the Minister will be to restore confidence, and I wish him well.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): This has been a long and exceedingly interesting debate. It has been graced with two maiden speeches and also with the beginnings of unanimity in areas where we perceive there to be certain difficulties.
Running through the debate I detected a plea for equality of treatment for the west midlands vis-a-vis other parts of the country and our international competitors. I also detected, not least in the maiden speeches, a plea for fairness, but not favours for the west midlands. As west midlanders, we are prepared to cope with fare and free competition, domestically and internationally. We are agreed that nothing whatsoever is wrong with metal bashing or the engineering industry, provided that we are good at those skills; provided that they are in the genes and the chromosomes of the work force. They certainly are in the west midlands.
We are agreed that over three or four decades we gradually produced an economy which developed structural weaknesses in the locality which we hardly noticed until it was almost—I use that word advisedly—too late. We are agreed that whatever policies we deploy we should use them to help existing companies in established industries to re-equip and, if necessary to move up market. We are agreed that we should help nurture the newer industries. I refer to industries in terms of industrial and service activity. We are agreed that we should help with inward investment into our region so that we can assist whatever trends there are to broaden an over-narrow industrial base. The tactics are, of course, a matter for discussion and are contentious.
We intend to deploy to the best effect a number of section 8 measures in the west midlands—section 8 in its full blown form or in the form of support for innovation or new products and processes, and in the form of specific schemes to encourage new technologies such as robotics and microbiological sciences. I am delighted to report that we are developing state of the art technology in carbon fibres. We are not doing too badly in robotics, whether in Telford or in Rugby. We are not doing too badly—we are doing very well indeed—in the development of fibre optics technology.
Let us agree that we have things of which to be proud in our region. Let us agree, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) said, that there is a danger of talking our region down. We accept that times have been tough, and still are for many employers and non-employees, but let us dedicate ourselves to raising morale and doing whatever we can to increase confidence so that we have the base and morale from which we can proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) observed with eloquence the courtesies expected of a maiden speaker. I visited his constituency recently and helped him to open the Expo '83 exhibition. I saw there a fine example of a community deciding to help itself and to use whatever help there is in the locality to the best effect. My hon. Friend promised me a progress report on that endeavour and I look forward to receiving it. My hon. Friend echoed our theme—fair trade, not favours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) also made his maiden speech. I congratulate him on the common sense and conviction with which he deployed his arguments. He was right, as were other hon. Friends, about industrial development certificates. He was right also, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), to say that we made errors in the past in lengthening the production and supply lines of many enterprises. I, too, have reason to remember ruefully the lessons of Speke and Linwood.
We were reminded yet again in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East that we want a fair crack of the whip—no more and no less.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth showed us his understanding of the phenomenon of what he called "Pawsey's law". I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have a habit of curling up in bed with Hansard will read my hon. Friend's remarks.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is a professional and seasoned campaigner, albeit after a period of temporary exile from the House, said that the economy was about people. He began to lead us into a rather tenuous argument by juxtaposing the words "the economy is about people, not productivity and not profit". The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take issue with him on that. If people maximise their individual talents, they become productive and, if the companies concerned have anything about them, make profits. So perhaps we found another form of agreement tonight.
Will the hon. Gentleman join me, in the few days that we have before August arrives, in asking his constituents, midlanders and indeed the country to consider what they will be doing when they buy their new cars with the new registration numbers in August. They should think seriously if they are tempted to buy a foreign car on its


merits, because there are now many British cars on which they may have turned their backs in previous years—for snob value or whatever — at which they should take another look. They should look at some of the fine cars coming out of our factories and consider the additional redundancies that will occur if they continue—it may be a newly acquired habit on the part of some consumers—to buy foreign cars.
We could debate at great length who did what to whom when their Lordships Ryder and Stokes held their tenancies—albeit temporary and not too well pursued tenancies—at British Leyland. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the period of "Big is beautiful" when the former right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, Mr. Tony Benn, was in power, was perhaps a time when many misguided things were done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) was, as ever, pugnacious. I learnt at his knee in the ward of Moseley in Birmingham and he, like me, is an adopted Brummie. We are proud of that city's endeavours. I am proud, too, of the much more ancient city of Coventry.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) made an extraordinary and enlivening speech, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not going to allow me to tell the House why.

Welsh Economy

Mr. Ray Powell: I am fortunate to have drawn No. 4 in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. My subject, unemployment and the Welsh economy, will undoubtedly be a follow-on of the debate on the west midlands.
At 3.19 am on 8 February this year, only five months ago, I was afforded the opportunity to introduce a subject on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. The subject that I nominated then was the nationalised industries in Wales. The Minister who replied, the late Michael Roberts, while having a different view from mine, nevertheless had a clear understanding of the problems that we face in Wales. Having re-read his reply to the debate, I appreciate more fully his ideology, viewpoint and sincere belief in the hope of solving the cancer of unemployment. I can well understand how and why so many of his close colleagues miss him. Only two days later he died, while replying to a debate on Welsh affairs. That was the last debate we had on problems in Wales. Since then, we have lost our Shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs, Alec Jones — a true and sincere representative of Wales. Both those Members played a part in advocating a better Wales.
I hope that this debate, although limited to one and a half hours, will afford us the opportunity to further the wishes of those we represent — not to score political points, but to present constructive thinking to close the great divide between those of our people with jobs and those without jobs. I feel that that would have been the wish of both our departed colleagues.
About six weeks ago, we had the general election. The electors gave their decision and, while I appreciate that they returned a Tory majority nationwide, a Labour majority was returned in Wales. I remind the Minister of State, Welsh Office of the mandate that the Government received from the Welsh electors. The number of votes for the Conservatives was slashed from 526,254 in 1979 to 499,310—a mere 31 per cent. of the electorate. The Labour party received 603,858 votes—36·7 per cent. of the electorate and 104,000 more than the Conservatives. Let us recognise from the start that the Government have no mandate to introduce policies in Wales other than those that the present system allows, and, if nothing else, they should pay far more heed to the party in Wales that received the support and blessing of the majority of electors.
Time does not permit us to analyse the election or to debate in depth and detail all the promises made to the electors by the Tory party, but we know them all. What appals me is that within three weeks of the Government's getting back, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer discovered that all the figures given by his predecessor were wrong. All the predictions made during the election campaign of a recovery round the corner were false. Within days of moving into 11 Downing street, the new Chancellor checked the books and found that public spending was going out of control. After consultation with the mistress, the right hon. Gentleman hurried along to the House to tell us the sorry tale.
Since then, the Government have tried to convince everybody that they were not aware of the facts before 9 June. Some people blush when they lie, some go green and


others are capable of telling lies and proving them. The electors know only too well what was the truth and who was telling it.
Only days after 9 June, the mortgage rate was increased. Why was that not disclosed before the election? What has happened in Wales since 9 June? Have we had any redundancies? Have there been any closures? Can we look forward to an upturn in the economy? I shall give the House details of job prospects in the near future. I shall deal later with the long-term outlook.
I have a long list of job losses and gains since the election. It starts on 14 June with five job losses at Winvest in Cardiff. On 15 June, there were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) will probably confirm later, 638 job losses at Brynlliw colliery. On 16 June, the NCB announced that 70,000 jobs were to go. Terry Thomas, the vice-president of the south Wales miners, estimates that 9,000 jobs will be lost in Wales.
On 18 June, there were four job gains in Gwent Aluminium industry. On 22 June, there were 150 gains at Avana Rogerstone. On 23 June, there were 20 gains at Haeffner Holdings, the pigmeat processors at Clwyd. On 28 June, there were 70 to 80 losses at Saunders Valves of Newport. On 30 June, Jon Windows, Cardiff, 60 job losses; 30 June also, WDA Factories, Dyfed, 10 firms, 30 to 60 jobs in the pipeline, so call them all gains; 1 July, Milk Marketing Board, Newcastle, Emlyn, 165 jobs lost; on the same day, Kraft Cheese, Haverfordwest, 60 jobs to go; also on the same day, a little consolation, W. H. Pryce, Welshpool, 30 jobs gained, but in that one day we had a net loss of 195 jobs; 2 July, Snakpak, Cardiff, 180 jobs lost; the same day, South Wales Transformers, Treforest, 72 jobs lost; 4 July, STC, Milford Haven, 56 gains; 5 July, Welsh-Irish Ferries, Barry, 30 jobs lost; 8 July, BP Chemicals, Barry, 200 jobs lost; 9 July, Tredomen Engineering, Ystrad Mynach, 200 jobs lost; the same day, South Wales Switchgear, Blackwood, 95 jobs lost; 15 July, Blaengwrach Colliery, 160 jobs lost; the same day, Leos Superstore, Cwmbran, 20 jobs lost.
On these figures—there are numerous others; if they employ fewer than 10 they are not even mentioned—there are 2,000 losses to 300 gains, and 70,000 losses nationally forecast by the NCB. With unemployment escalating out of control to this degree, what have we in store during the summer recess? Can we go away on holiday thinking that the prospects for our people in Wales are improving? Will we return in October to cheer for job prospects?
We are also made aware, through deliberate Cabinet leaks, that £5 billion could be the aim of the Chancellor's cuts in public spending, in addition to the already announced cuts of £500 million and the sale of assets worth another £500 million. At Welsh Question Time on Monday I failed to receive an adequate reply from the Secretary of State about the effects of the cuts on Wales. How many doctors, nurses and other hospital staff will be lost to cut the Welsh authorities' grants by £6·5 million? That is a scandalous action and foreign to the promise made by the Prime Minister that the Health Service was safe with the Tories. These cuts are bound to be a risk to the health of our people and will obviously mean a reduction in services generally.
We need think back only to 1979 to know how our hospitals have suffered. It is appalling to think of the

1,000-plus elderly people at home at risk because there are no hospital beds available for them. More, not less, social services, sheltered accommodation, doctors, nurses and other staff should be made available, and that should be the demand of the Secretary of State in Cabinet.
What is even more nauseating than the lapdog tactics of the Secretary of State for Wales is the attitude of the Chancellor and of the Prime Minister to those out of work. They suggest that some people prefer the dole to work. The Chancellor even suggested that there were plenty of jobs available but that people chose to remain workless because they were better off on the dole.
The Prime Minister, speaking about school leavers, said it was too easy for some of them to go straight on to social security at the age of 16; they liked it and they had a lot of money in their pockets. Speaking as a grocer's daughter and a disciple of St. Francis, she told the House a few weeks ago that older unemployed family men could easily make do on less if their wives fed them more sensibly.
In the coming months there will be more and more of these high-living layabouts to ponder on the Government's words. The redundant Health Service workers will be joined by 5,000 from British Aerospace, 70,000 miners, 50,000 teachers, 2,000 Liverpool biscuit workers, 2,200 from Birds Eye and Walls, thousands displaced by the privatisation of local government and the National Health Service, 3,700 shipyard workers and possibly thousands of gas industry staff if the Government, as predicted, renew their attempt to hive off the showrooms. All that is predicted is doom and gloom.
What happened during the four years of the Tory Government who were elected in 1979? Prices increased by 50 per cent., investment in industry fell by a third and manufacturing output fell by a fifth. Britain ended up importing more manufactured goods than it exported for the first time since the industrial revolution. Unemployment soared and public spending and public services were slashed. New laws were passed to hinder the trade unions in protecting the pay and conditions of working people. In the first six weeks of the new Conservative Government the signs are that these desperate dosages are to be repeated even more harshly than in the preceding four years.
That will happen if displaced Ministers and others allow it to happen. The dismissed Foreign Secretary was right when he expressed the hope that there would not be a landslide victory for the Conservative party. We have yet to hear the rumblings and grumblings erupt, but perhaps some of those who are making these noises are waiting for the end of the summer recess before they do so.
What can we expect for the future? The CBI, the Government's friend, is demanding more cuts in public spending and estimates that there will be 360,000 more jobs lost. This is to happen for the sake of tax cuts to big business. This is the CBI's hit list — 47,000 Civil Service jobs in 1984–85, 41,000 teachers, 90,000 teacher-support staff, 19,000 front-line Health Service workers and 63,000 support service staff. The president of the CBI accepts that the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by his confederation, is succeeding in reducing pay increases but says that this is not happening fast enough. The fault could be attributable in part to himself, having last year accepted a 28 per cent. increase as chairman of Scottish Television and a 21 per cent. increase in his remuneration as chairman of Dunlop.
The tax concessions to the well-off continue. The Government have agreed to raise the level at which a higher rate of tax is paid from £12,800 to £14,600. The loss in tax revenue will be about £1,000 million. That is the sum by which the Chancellor cut public spending, as he announced only two days earlier.
What can the coal industry in south Wales expect? During the long summer recess a new chairman will take over at the National Coal Board. On 1 September, Mr. MacGregor, the steel industry butcher, will take over, at a cost to the nation of about £1 million in compensation payments, plus expenses. We shall then have an expert to reduce another of our basic industries.
We have not yet recovered from Mr. MacGregor's demanning of the Welsh steel industry. Even before he takes up the post, and since the general election, the NCB has announced its intention to cut 17,000 jobs. Why was that not announced before 9 June? Why was Arthur Scargill criticised for his forecast of massive pit closures? We all appreciate that job losses of such magnitude will have a devastating effect nationwide, but especially on Wales when we consider the additional job losses in rail, road, engineering and other associated industries there.
Mr. Terry Thomas, vice-president of the south Wales miners, warned this weekend at a conference at Llandridnod Wells that manpower in the south Wales coalfield will be cut from 23,000 to 14,000 and that only five or six of the present 31 pits might survive. When those figures were announced some months ago, what reaction did we have from the NCB and Conservative Members? We were called scaremongers and liars and told that we were using pit closures for political advantage and quite a lot more. In my constituency there are five collieries. I should like to know how many will be left after MacGregor wields his axe. Pit closures pose many other problems, because for every job that is lost in mining, two are lost in supporting industries.

Mr. Geraint Howells: As the situation is grim in the south Wales coalfield, would the hon. Gentleman be willing to try to persuade our counterparrts in Europe to set up a common energy policy which would benefit south Wales miners?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is right. As we are to have European elections next year, the Opposition parties could advocate a European energy policy, consider seriously how much compensation and support the British Government give to the coal industry and compare that with what other European Governments provide.
I fear that, after 12 weeks of recess, we shall return to find that miners are going into recess for the rest of their working days. I am the son of a miner and come from a mining area. I visualise that, in the Ogmore area, 5,000 people could be put out of work in the five collieries. A further 10,000 people would lose their jobs for every colliery that closes. In Ogmore, 8,000 people are out of work and there are only 100 vacancies.
Can we find any hope in the Manpower Services Commission report for 1982–83? I have read the MSC report, the corporate plan 1983–87 "Welsh Economic Trends, 1982–83", "Unemployment in Wales: the present situation and future trends" by the Institute of Economic Research in Bangor and the documents that are published monthly by the Department of Employment in an attempt to find out what prospects there are for the 8,000 people

in Ogmore and for the 200,000 others in Wales who seek employment. The MSC report says of the long-term unemployed—the forgotten generation—that 410,000 of those aged 18 to 25 were out of work for more than 12 months. That figure represents 45 per cent. of the 940,000 jobless in that age group, and the community programme just cannot cope. Youth unemployment figures reached a peak of 25 per cent. in October 1982, despite the youth opportunities programme which provided 750,000 places.
Where is the hope for young people? When will we have the skills that we shall need should the Government decide to change their policies and to end this so-called recession, which was deliberately contrived by the Government? What hope have we in Wales unless our spokesman fights the demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of playing lapdog to the Prime Minister and her other pet poodles? We need a strong, determined voice to press our claims for our people, instead of the obvious relenting from this super Lloyd's "yes man". What fight did he put up to stop the £6·5 million drop in the funding of hospital services in Wales?
On 16 June, an all-Wales conference on unemployment was convened by the Welsh counties and district councils. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly have received a copy of the papers. I should like to place on record the resolutions of that joint conference and the action that it called for from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what action he intends to take, in response to the series of resolutions, that could alleviate the present grave situation.
Before reading those resolutions, I shall quote what the secretary of the Welsh counties committee suggested by way of direct job creation. The Secretary of State for Wales would do well to consider the suggestions earnestly.
He suggested:
It might be appropriate to refer to a possible programme of direct job creation. Local authorities are well placed, with their strong and direct financial management controls, to be involved in a programme of direct job creation as part of developed regional policy. Even within the wider limits of central government thinking it might be possible to get an extension of the MSC programmes to provide for public payroll schemes which enable local authorities to take on staff with the difference between the cost of keeping someone unemployed and the job rate met by the local authority supported by RSG and certainly not penalised for seeking to co-operate in the policy. It will still be costing money, but the people concerned will be doing work of real benefit to the community—we need creative thinking to devise a plan for a wages subsidy in both the private and public sector as an alternative to the wasteful use of our precious resources that is currently taking place. An extra 2M unemployed costs the country 3 per cent. of its GDP—compare this with the cost of the entire local government sector: less than 10 per cent. of GDP. On the government's own figures it is costing an average of £70 a week to keep a person unemployed—a tragic waste when they could be doing useful work. There is a strong case for local government demonstrating to the public and the government that it is not only doing vital work but that it is essential to the national interest that it does more. We need better transport, housing, education, more industrial sites and factories. It is far better to improve society and the economy by employing people in these areas than paying them to be unemployed. The real cost is only the difference between wage rates and unemployment costs; at an average wage of £5,000 a year the real cost is about £1,500. If local government in Wales was allowed to spend £50M in real terms on direct job creation schemes at average wage rates, an additional 33,000 could be employed in Wales—reducing unemployment to less than 13 per cent.
The draft resolutions from that conference, which I believe should go on record, stated:
The Conference calls on the Secretary of State fm. Wales to recognise the severity of the economic problems of the


Principality and to acknowledge the need for a strengthening of regional policy … to give local government the financial capability to perform a meaningful role in regional and local economic development. In particular, the Conference calls for the relaxation of controls on local government to enhance, not inhibit, their contribution to local employment initiatives. In particular, the Conference calls for the relaxation of statutory and ministerial controls on local government to enhance, not inhibit, their contribution to local government initiatives and enable EEC regional grants to be truly additional to National Government Capital allocation.
The Conference would stress the importance of introducing joint consultations between Central and Local Government aimed at identifying new initiatives which could form the basis of direct job creation measures in the public sector in Wales. This is considered to be vital at a time of increasing demand for local services which cannot be met at a time of financial cutback. The Conference calls on the Secretary of State to give his full backing to the concept of regional policy and its relevance in the present situation. The Review of Regional Policy should lead to a reinforcement of incentives for new industry to come to Wales. Joint Consultation should also proceed as a matter of urgency aimed at introducing an enhanced local authority capital programme in Wales which would create both short and long term job opportunities, as well as improving the country's basic infrastructure. The local authorities stress the need for a consistent approach to capital spending programmes and deplore the 'stop go' approach which has bedevilled their planning.
The Conference calls on the Secretary of State to consider a joint approach with the local authorities to see in what way planning policies can be made more sympathetic to the need for economic development. The Conference stresses the need for local authorities to play a proper part in providing recreational and leisure opportunities at this time, and for them to be given the financial support to fulfil this role.
Those are the views of local authorities in Wales, and they are the resolutions adopted. I remind the Minister that they are not all Labour-controlled authorities.
I have outlined what the Government intend to do, and shown the butchery with which they intend to attack the fabric of our society. Redundancy announcements, which were not forthcoming during the election campaign, are escalating. Massive pit closures are forecast, and steel and shipbuilding will be further devastated.
The Government, bankrupt of policies to solve the problems that they have created, turn their attention to those unable to defend themselves — pensioners and those whom they have thrown on the scrap heap—by cutting their benefits, all to satisfy this headlong rush towards a Victorian society based on private affluence and public squalor. We have a duty vigorously to oppose those measures, to stop this insanity, and to stop them taking us on this course of economic and industrial disaster. The Government must and will be stopped. If Conservative Members cannot or will not help, the fight will be taken outside and the united trade union movement will be called to assist.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In that part of his speech that was addressed to the House of Commons as opposed to a general management committee—I am bound to say that it was the greater part of the speech—the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) made a number of valid points to which I shall allude. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that the extremely warm and generous tribute which he paid at the beginning of his speech to Michael Roberts and Alec Jones won the sympathy of the House and ensured a careful hearing for the remainder of what he said.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Ogmore will not be surprised to find that there are a number of matters in which, although I do not entirely agree with him, I share his anxiety. Like him, I want to see more, not fewer, social services, doctors and nurses. Like him, I am disturbed when I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that there is plenty of work for those who wish to find it. I took the trouble to check the transcript of the television interview to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The report went a long way beyond what he said, and the headline writer went a great deal further. At no point in the interview did the Chancellor use anything like the words which are attributed to him. Having thus far exculpated him, I am bound to say that some of my right hon. Friends bother me when they appear to suggest that the level of unemployment benefit is such as to provide a disincentive for people seeking work. Their proposition is valid in some areas, especially in London.
I think nothing of that great sign on County Hall which each day tells us the total number of London unemployed because I know also that a number of jobs in London are not being done because people are not prepared to do them at the wages offered. I do not blame them, but I believe that some unemployment in London is bogus. This is not the case in Wales, especially in those areas which have been hit harder by industrial change than any other parts of the United Kingdom.
We are all familiar with the excessive dependence in the Principality on traditional industries. We know that the change from traditional industries to those of the next century was bound to be painful throughout the country, and that it was bound to be agonising in Wales; and agonising it has been.
I support the determination of my right hon. Friends not to stand in the way of technological change. If we do as the hon. Member for Ogmore would have us do we shall try to hang on to jobs in mining and steel for as long as possible—heaven knows, there is every justification for wanting to do so. I do not see how any Member of Parliament with such jobs at risk in his constituency can do anything other than burst himself to hang on to them. I did much the same thing when faced with the massive closure at Shotton, which is just outside my constituency. By delaying that closure programme I did immense harm to my constituents. I do not expect the hon. Member for Ogmore to accept it when I say that if he were successful in trying to defer the closure of pits which are coming towards the end of their economic life—I am choosing my words carefully—he would be damaging rather than helping his constituents' interests. I do not expect him to accept that and I do not expect his electors to accept it, but, none the less, I believe that that will be history's verdict.
I support the process of technological change which, if it is carried through to a successful conclusion, will mean that in the 21st century Wales will be able to hold its own in competition with the rest of the world and provide a decent standard of living for its people. However, we have another 17 years of this century to go. It will be a painful transition. Where I might perhaps find myself at odds with some of my right hon. Friends is over the actions that I believe that the Government should take over those next 17 years—because they will be 17 years of Tory rule—not to slow that process of change but to ensure that it does not result in blighted lives.
Part of the answer lies in the programmes for youth employment, training and the like, which I welcome.
However, we all know that they are palliatives and not the real answer. I believe that I can see the glimmer of an answer, but I do not see how one reaches it. I believe that the answer must lie in an enormous expansion of work-sharing. The trouble is that the moment one mentions job-sharing, every trade union boss opens his dossier and finds in it a cast-iron case for paying his members a great deal more for doing a great deal less.
If job-sharing is not to prove catastrophic and wreck the competitiveness of the Welsh economy before it has even begun, it will have to go hand in hand with the acceptance of at least a postponement of a rise in living standards. We must accept the idea of a shorter working week, day, year and life and with it a much more intensive use of our capital equipment. We are building modern factories with modern equipment, but they are not being used fully. They are manned by one or, at the most two shifts. This equipment should be worked by six shifts around the clock. Enormous wealth would be created by the intensive use of our capital equipment. Such wealth could be used to finance more lavish social services, a better National Health Service, more doctors and nurses, smaller classes and more home helps. They are the objectives of us all. Opposition Members will say, "Oh, but the Government are doing precisely the opposite."
The Government are cutting down on our social services. Once again, I have to accept these cuts because even the inadequate social services that we have are more than we can afford without imposing an intolerable burden on our industry and thus destroying its competitiveness. Somehow or other, we have to get past, this point. I do not see how that can be done, but it needs to be done.
I am distressed, however, to hear some of my right hon. Friends talking of cuts in the social services — fewer teachers, fewer welfare workers and the rest—as if this were a desirable objective in itself. I do not accept that. I accept the cuts as a horrible necessity, the very last thing that I should want to do. I support the Government's policies. They are on the right lines and I am convinced that the Labour party's policies are a recipe for catastrophe. However, I only wish that my right hon. Friends, in putting forward their admirable policies, could offer us a little hope.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is making the usual persuasive speech made by Tory Members. However, there are two questions to be asked. First, will the hon. Gentleman therefore not oppose, on any count, cuts in the real standard of living of the unemployed, that is, a cut in the real meaning of benefits as we understand them, for the unemployed? Secondly, when he speaks of social services and home helps, and the necessity at the moment for the cuts, does he not realise that there is a massive on-cost? If we cut home helps, there will be more need for more expensive places in old people's homes, hospitals, or geriatric wards. We suffer from this in our community. It is thus not a saving in any sense of the word to cut home helps. The consequences of those cuts in the short term—not even the long term — will be visited on the Government anyway.

Sir Anthony Meyer: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I agree. To cut the social services in such a way as to make it impossible for people to remain in the community and to force them into institutions is lunacy.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point about cuts in the level of unemployment benefit, I did a broadcast this morning. In the past I have opposed the Government's ideas for reducing the level of unemployment benefit by 5 per cent. Once the principle of taxing the unemployment benefit —which I support—had been introduced, I opposed the concomitant use of the 5 per cent. abatement.
As to the future, I could not commit myself here and now to opposing any fall-back in the increase of unemployment benefit. I could not commit myself to the idea that the unemployment benefit must keep pace at exactly or more than the increase in the cost of living. I should want to look carefully at any proposals for cutting that benefit. It was, and it remains, my thinking that we cannot solve the problem of unemployment by clobbering the unemployed. That does not necessarily commit me to fight for the unemployed to escape all the sacrifices that the rest of us may have to bear.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The incidence of involuntary unemployment is a key variable that has to be carefully examined whenever one considers the efficacy of the Government's management of the real economy. In the past four years economic textbooks have added chronic involuntary unemployment to the types of unemployment that previously existed. It is the new economic and social disease of the 1980s. Never in recorded economic history have any Government presided over such a tremendous acceleration in the rate of long-term unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Wales has provided me with quarterly figures for long-term unemployment for each county in the Principality. He knows only too well the sorry picture that that unfolds. Of every five unemployed persons in the county of West Glamorgan, in which my constituency lies, two have been unemployed for more than a year.
In May 1982 the House of Lords Select Committee on Unemployment summed up the kind of effects which this new type of unemployment has on people. It said at page 55:
Among the long-term unemployed, surveys suggest a sequence of psychological reactions, which can be compared to a downward spiral. At first, shock and disbelief are combined with optimism and a sense of being on holiday; then the holiday feeling gives way to meaningless leisure, inertia and exhaustion, with tensions in the family and a loss of self-esteem; money Wins short, activities are curtailed; lastly comes the 'broken state', in which despite the lifting of earlier anxiety and depression there is a feeling of inferiority, submissiveness, and inability to provide for needs, with acceptance of the new `non-occupational' identity, a more limited way of life, and little hope of change.
Poverty among children rears its ugly head when the cold wind of unemployment blows through their parents' lives. One indicator of this poverty is the number of children receiving free school meals. Until the financial year 1979–80, caring local authorities gave free school meals to all children of low-income families. In September 1980 local authorities engaged in tightening the financial belt and started to give free school meals only to children whose families were in receipt of benefits.
The 1982 annual education report to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Wales, which has only just been published, summarises the school meals situation. This is the crucial point. Despite a fall in the number of children in Wales consuming school meals, from 187,957 in 1979 to 138,428 in 1982, the number of children receiving free school meals rose from 40,682 to 44,854 in the same


period. By 1982, 32·4 per cent. of pupils in Wales taking school meals in Wales were receiving them free of charge. That shows the increase in poverty under the Conservative Government. Of the 28,500 school meals consumed daily in West Glamorgan, almost 32 per cent. are provided free because of low parental income.
Those children see their future in a world of joblessness. The area director of the National Coal Board in Wales promises jobs for every man in Brinlliw if that colliery closes, but he and the children of Wales well know that there are not 638 extra jobs in the pits around Brinlliw. The truth is that job opportunities in the mining industry in Wales are being cut. That is the future that stretches before the children. In my experience, if there are cuts in the mining industry that does not bode well for the other industries in the Principality.
Great and traumatic as those effects of unemployment are, there is a greater and more damaging danger—a growing feeling that unemployment is a natural product of forces beyond man's power to control and a return to a decadent mode of thinking best symbolised by the determinist school of geographical thinkers at the beginning of this century, with man as the passive element tossed hither and thither by earthquake, tide and storm.
In such schemata, with the resurrection of Say's law, the powerful real balance effect and the stability of the velocity of the circulation of money, the Government's role is periodically to summon a couple of carefully selected free market economic gurus to deliberate on the economic trends of tomorrow. All too often these experts turn out to be less reliable in predicting the economy than the fairground fortune-tellers with their tea leaves. Out of the best empirical evidence and the best models available, they conjure up titbits of comfort for the consumption of their political paymasters.
There was a classic example of that on 17 May 1982, when the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury opened the Cutlers garden in London. The quotation is well worth repeating:
The evidence of the start of a recovery is all about us and not even the most blinkered pessimist could fail to see it".
The Government's reliance on augury is touching, but it is not a sound bedrock on which to build the economic future of Wales and Britain, because the symptoms of deep despair are all around us and it is only the blinkered who fail to see those. We are living in a period of our country's existence when the inevitability of economic failure is rapidly becoming the new conventional wisdom.
If the Government continue their obsession with monetary variables—their search for the stability of the velocity of the circulation of money — without giving due weight to the real economy, stagnation may become a permanent feature of Britain's standard of living. Progress will be at an end, for people will begin to accept their lot, feeling unwanted and alienated in a world of rapid technological change.
The Government have the opportunity to match wasting resources and desperately needed improvements. There are sick people in desperate need of hospital treatment. There are rutted roads in great need of maintenance, without which the risk of accident and death is increased. There are antiquated sewers needing replacement. There are Airey and BISF houses in need of rebuilding. The

problem of Cornish units is only now coming rapidly to the fore as one of the new problems facing our housing stock.

Mr. Rowlands: And the classes of 36 too.

Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall confine myself to housing capital expenditure. It can clearly be seen how the Government are preventing local authorities from assisting people to improve their homes.
This morning I met the chief executive of Lliw Valley borough council, which forms part of the Gower constituency. I went to see him because many of my constituents are complaining bitterly about the ceiling imposed by the authority on house improvement grants. In the current financial year, Lliw Valley has allocated £4·7 million for capital expenditure on housing, of which £1 million is for improvement and repair grants. The high commitment of £3·7 million is largely because of 66 Airey houses and 290 BISF houses in the housing stock which must be extensively refurbished, yet Lliw Valley borough council cannot get extra Government cash unless its improvement and repair grants comprise at least 50 per cent. of its capital expenditure for housing. To do that it would have drastically to curtail its programme on Airey and BISF houses. Such action would be heartless.
The response of the other local authority in my constituency has been to exclude certain geographical areas from improvement grants. None of my constituents living in the Swansea city council area are entitled to receive the grant. Unemployment in the construction industry in Wales is high, while unmet needs abound. The Government must act now to boost morale. If they lower morale, increase hopelessness and encourage people to feel that they cannot participate in the future of this country, we shall be on a slippery slope into a new and dark economic age.
I urge the Minister to give hope to the people of Wales and to give them an injection of enthusiasm. We see a future without hope and a generation of our children with no hope of ever working again.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on raising the important subjects of unemployment and the economy of Wales. Those matters are close to the hearts of all Welshmen, and there can be no doubt about that. As a Conservative, I can say that those matters are very much at the heart of the Government's thinking on Wales and the future of its people and I welcome this opportunity to put the Government's view on record.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he paid to the late Michael Roberts and Alec Jones. Both men had many more friends than opponents. I add my tribute to his. Both men went through life making friends, which is an achievement for anybody, especially in politics.
It is right that unemployment should be at the front of our minds in the debate. But it is misleading for Opposition members to argue that the high levels of unemployment are the responsibility of the Government or the consequence of our efforts to tackle our basic economic problems — which are there whichever Government are in power because they go back a long way.
It is true to say that we laid the foundations of recovery during our previous Administration. I remind the House that in our manifesto for the recent election we set out the policies that we intended to pursue to continue and build on that recovery. Hon. Members opposite put forward to the electorate proposals for econimic recovery based on spending our way out of trouble. I accept that they were sincere in those proposals, but we have always maintained that such proposals, however well intended, would lead to even more severe economic problems and higher unemployment.
Obviously there is disagreement on that fundamental matter. The electorate made its choice and has given us a vote of confidence for the path that we are pursuing. I do not deny that it is a difficult path. I am not unsympathetic to many of the points raised tonight, but I disagree about the remedies.
What concerns us tonight is the particular problems of Wales, although as part of the United Kingdom our economic well-being depends upon what is happening in the country and in the world as a whole. The level of unemployment in Wales, as hon. Members have made clear, is unacceptably high. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) made a sympathetic and thoughtful speech and hon. Members on both sides will agree about that.
However, I reject the absurd suggestion that this Government are indifferent to unemployment. That is not a good basis for debate. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tried to disguise from the House our anxieties about the unemployment level. In the longer term we need to create the conditions necessary to provide new and secure jobs for our people. This we are doing. We are also concerned about the short-term problems. The scale of help that we are offering to the unemployed demonstrates our concern.
Reference has been made to our future policies. No decisions have been made. One area of concern to us is the number of people who have been out of work for an extended period. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred to that in detail I understand his arguments and feel the deepest sympathy for the long-term unemployed, but we should take a careful look at one factor to which he referred in a different way. The sting of unemployment is not the poverty that the hon. Gentleman stressed; the sting is the loss of status. I appreciate that and I do not want Opposition Members to attempt to lecture me on that, because I understand the problem and feel it deeply. That is why we introduced the community programme.

Mr. Rowlands: If the Minister is concerned about the dignity of unemployment will he confirm that many people will remain unemployed and should not be sacrificed by cuts in benefit? Does he support the principle of upholding the real value of benefits for the unemployed? That is the key to the dignity of being unemployed. Where does the hon. Gentleman stand?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I understand the point, but I shall not be diverted. We have introduced the community programme to offer aid. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) understandably is concentrating on the material aspects. That is vital, but it is not the most important issue. The programme is to provide about 130,000 places a year nationally and £380 million will be devoted to it.
We are all also concerned about the problems of the young. With my special responsibilities under the Secretary of State for Education and Science and for the careers service, that is of particular concern to me. School leavers today face a different world from that of 10 years ago. Whether it is the long-term unemployed, the redundant or the youngster about whom we are so concerned, we cannot escape by any ideology the fact that we face rapid technological change. That is accepted on both sides of the House.
We disagree only about the way to grapple with this massive problem. For those not fortunate enough to find employment, the work experience, training and other support provided by the youth opportunities programme has been of great value in improving their prospects. However this year it is being replaced by the new youth training scheme, which we should all welcome. Its aim is to help us move towards a position where all young people under the age of 18 have the opportunity either to continue in full-time education or of entering a period of planned work experience combined with a work-related training and education.
In Great Britain as a whole, some £1 billion will be spent this year on the youth training scheme, which shows our determination not only to alleviate unemployment but to provide young people with the chance to obtain agreed standards of skill and to provide them with a basis for progress through further learning.
But we must also look at the longer term. In our manifesto for Wales we said:
We have had to prepare the infrastructure and create the environment in which the economy of Wales, so long dependent on old basic industries, can be diversified and rebuilt around the new technologies.
The hon. Member for Ogmore appeared to be fighting for his constituents. That is understandable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West said. I appreciate that, but I think he does it at his peril if he holds up the future, because we must live in this changing world whether we like it or not. This applies to all of us—the young, the long-term unemployed and those still in work. This point must be put across by every responsible Member to his constituents.
We are doing much to improve the infrastructure of Wales and in particular we are doing much to irnprove communications. I do not want to go over the ground in detail but perhaps I can mention two specific schemes which highlight the continued and dramatic improvement in our road network. Just over a week ago, I had the pleasure to open the new Crumlin to Aberbeeg section of the A467 and last Friday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened the Carmarthen southern bypass. Those two schemes will, in their various ways, be of immense value, the one improving access to the heart of one of the great industrial valleys and the other making communications a great deal easier with the rural western part of Wales.
It is also appropriate that at this point I refer to the work of the Welsh Development Agency. It is playing a significant part in helping to create new jobs in Wales. At the end of June there were 434 Welsh Development Agency units available for letting in Wales, a further 80 were under construction and a further 102 planned.

Mr. Rowlands: Empty sheds.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: That is very illustrative. If we do nothing we are criticised; if we prepare for the future we are also criticised. What does the hon. Gentleman want —inactivity or foresight?

Mr. Rowlands: A balance between the two.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: That is precisely what the Government are providing. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said "a balance between the two" because the balance is a difficult one to achieve. I hope that Opposition Members will have seen the 1983 report of the Welsh Development Agency which was published last week. It contains a valuable record of achievements. Perhaps I can highlight some of the more prominent points. We have again seen a record in the allocation of factories by the agency exceeding the previous record which was set in the previous year. Well over 1·5 million sq ft of space was allocated in the year with a promise of nearly 6,000 jobs over the period when the factories become fully occupied. I trust that all hon. Members will recognise that this is an entirely praiseworthy achievement and the report contains a good deal of other material which I can only mention in passing — for example, the executive secondment scheme and the venture capital subsidiary, "Hafren". The past financial year was also a good one for the WDA's investment. I am confident that the agency will continue to make a major contribution to the Welsh economy.
It is perhaps appropriate at this point also to note that there has been increased interest from Welsh-based industry and incoming firms in the forms of the selective financial assistance available under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act to support projects that will improve employment opportunities in the assisted areas. In the past financial year there has been an increase of 32 per cent. in the number of applications received. A similar increase occurred in the number of offers taken up by firms, which involved a total grant commitment of nearly £26 million in 1982–83, an increase of 37 per cent. on the previous financial year.
Similarly, in the first half of 1983 the small firms centre received nearly 9,500 inquiries—an increase of 15 per cent. over the same period last year. We have also taken important initiatives in helping to regenerate the older and decayed parts of urban Wales, through the urban programme and the urban development grant.
The urban programme makes an important contribution towards economic regeneration and job creation. In selecting schemes for approval in 1983–84, my right hon. Friend has been keen to give further encouragement to the creation of small businesses and has allocated about £6 million for new factory units, workshops and other job creating schemes within the urban programme.
Special attention has been given to areas of high unemployment. The five designated districts of Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff, Newport, Rhondda and Swansea together have received over £4 million—a quarter of the total urban programme resources—and substantial allocations have also been made to individual authorities in north-east and south-west Wales that are experiencing particular economic difficulties.

Mr. Rowlands: This is fantastic.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I accept that description. It is a fine record.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's marvellous description of all the factories that have been let, the new small

business schemes and the rest does not tally with the fact that 170,000 people in Wales are out of work. That is a fantastic number. That is what I meant when I said "fantastic". The Minister's description of a great, booming Wales is not in line with our experience or with the fact that 170,000 people are out of work—double the 1979 figure.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: But what I have said shows clearly that it is false to suggest that the Government are not doing their utmost to overcome the problem, which is not peculiar to this country.

Mr. Rowlands: They are failing hopelessly.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: As a former great Prime Minister of this country said long ago, wait and see.
My right hon. Friend has also been reviewing the status of all Welsh authorities under the urban programme. I am pleased to announce that, as a result of the review and subject to the completion of the necessary statutory procedures and consultations with the European Commission, he proposes to add the borough councils of Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley and Afan to the existing districts designated under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. I am sure that this change of status will be a valuable measure in dealing with the particular problems of these urban valley authorities. I am glad to see a smile of pleasure on the hon. Gentleman's face.

Mr. Rowlands: A modest smile, yes, but not necessarily of pleasure.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The House will be aware of the major new initiative announced last year, the urban development grant scheme. The grant is designed to trigger private investment in rundown urban areas and the results so far are most encouraging. Hon. Members will recall that earlier this year my right hon. Friend was able to announce that out of some 50 applications submitted for consideration, he had approved 13 projects for which UDG of some £5·9 million will trigger a total investment of almost £40 million. These projects will provide about 1,300 permanent job opportunities, with a similar number of construction jobs during the development period.
One of the most exciting features of the UDG scheme is the way in which support for one project can stimulate investment in other development projects in that area. An excellent example of this is the splendid new maritime quarter in Swansea, where UDG support for a major international hotel has been a factor in bringing forward high quality development of the whole area. Welsh local authorities are now preparing bids for the next UDG round and there is every indication that local authorities and developers will again respond with imaginative schemes to regenerate our inner urban areas.
In this connection, my right hon. Friend has already made it clear that he will give sympathetic consideration to proposals for urban development grant where this is necessary to bring forward the very exciting proposals for the redevelopment of Cardiff docklands.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister said that investment in new developments had a multiplier effect on jobs. Does he agree that when factories close there is a negative effect? We in Wales want the net effect of both movements to be positive, rather than negative as they are now.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am well aware of that factor. I said in an exchange earlier that getting the balance right was extremely difficult, and I do not renege on that.

Mr. Rowlands: And the Government got it wrong.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: That is a matter of opinion. The electorate thought otherwise.
There are many other aspects with which I could deal, but time is short. Reference was made to our great basic industries in Wales of steel and coal We want strong, competitive, efficient and viable coal and steel industries. They are part of our great tradition in Wales. But to imagine that we can achieve that by holding back the clock is unrealistic. I will not, in the limited time available, go into the details of both great industries, except to comment that the references that were made to the future of the coal industry were excessively gloomy. There is no queston of butchering it. We want strong, viable pits where investment can be put to the benefit of those who work in the coal industry and the nation because it is part—

Mr. Ray Powell: rose—

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I will not give way.

Mr. Powell: I want to know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Haro║d Walker): Order. The Minister said that he would not give way, and the debate is due to conclude at 2.22.

Mr. Powell: I am anxious to intervene because the Minister is dealing with the subject on which I concentrated, and I am sure that he would like to give me an assurance that my five collieries in Ogmore and the 5,000 people employed in them will be assured of a future after MacGregor is appointed on 1 September.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a matter for the NCB. He denigrated the area director in a way I deplore, and used words such as "lies", and that is well below the dignity of any hon. Member. I cannot given an assurance one way or the other, for it is a matter for the National Coal Board and not for me. Many of our pits—I am not referring to the five in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—are old, beset by geological faults and entirely uneconomic by any commercial standards. It is no good the hon. Gentleman challenging me or any other Minister on a matter which is entirely within the responsibility of the coal board. It is a fact of life that pits decline as they grow older and that there must

come a time when it is no longer sensible to keep them open at a loss. No purpose is served if the NCB is forced to subsidise losses and to delay job-making investment in new pits. In view of the hon. Gentleman's background, he should know that as well as anyone else in the House.
The coal industry needs a period of calm and realistic consideration that is aimed at achieving a viable industry that offers a good service to its customers and real security to its workers. There has been much talk of high technology and the future and the growth of such industries is encouraging for Wales. An impressive range of companies have established themselves or are in the process of so doing. Names such as Mitel, Ferranti, Amersham, Inmos, Matsushita, more recently Align Rite and very recently Comdial, whose decision was announced to the House last Monday, show the attraction that Wales holds. The expansion recently of AB Electronics shows the potential that exists for the growth of homebased industry, as do the recent announcements of other firms which are not in high technology, such as Avana and Smith Kendon.
We must build upon our successes and foster the establishment of Wales in the minds of industrialists and investors as a place where industry, particularly high technology industry, can thrive. This is for the future and does not concern the past. Some spend too much time dwelling upon the past. However, there is no point in laying the foundations for new technological industries if we do not have the manpower to meet their requirements.
It is right in this debate to mention the needs of young people. As we are more specifically concerned tonight with unemployment and the economy, I shall not comment on what is being done in schools. The progress of the information technology centres—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 2.22 am, the time set by Mr. Speaker for this debate to conclude.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion briefly. I have been most impressed with the co-operation that I have found throughout Wales from local authorities and the new local enterprise trusts. The positive steps that we are taking to help the transition from old to new technology in Wales, and the fostering of the growth of indigenous Welsh businesses, will provide a healthy future for our people. These developments, when set within the framework of our general economic policy, provide the only realistic path for secure and lasting opportunities for jobs in Wales in future.

Social Services (Finance)

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It gives me great pleasure, even at this somewhat unenlivening hour, to open what the House might consider to be one of the more important debates to be heard during the long night that we are now enjoying. I welcome my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who is as alert as ever and ready to answer all queries that are put to him from both sides of the House. The House might be somewhat confused to see me, someone who in House of Commons terms devotes his time increasingly to foreign affairs, suddenly materialise in a puff of nocturnal smoke to open a debate on social services. All I can say is that the procedures of the House never cease to surprise me, although I have been here for some time. When a few weeks ago those procedures materialised in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who wished to propose this subject, I, recognising as do hon. Members on both sides of the House his great interest in this important subject, added my name to a piece of paper and it was first out of the hat. That explains my presence here. I am pleased to be here.
It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friends to hear that I do not propose to say anything startling. I shall leave that to the experts whose ardour matches the hour and will follow me after I have set the scene, which is the most important thing that I can do.
Applying an amateur but, I hope, realistic eye, I should perhaps first define the social services. It is not possible to have a debate on the financing of the social services without involving the full umbrella of the responsibilities of the Department for Health and Social Security. I regard the National Health Service as the first entity, personal social services, the local authority role, joint funding and the rest as the second and social security—which is the most important in terms of cost—as the third.
We are dealing with a vast amount of public expenditure. The social services cost no less than 44 per cent. of public expenditure. That translates, so The Times this morning tells us, to about £51 billion out of a total estimated expenditure next year of £126·4 billion. That is a staggering sum of money, and no less than £36 billion of it is spent on social security.
In that regard we are dealing primarily with pensions. I understand that the Government are committed to protecting pensions against prices. An even larger part of that £36 billion is spent on unemployment benefit. On that I simply say, "So far, so good".
I do not wish to embarrass anyone, but there was a slight hiccup which perturbed many hon. Members during the previous Parliament. I refer to the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit. That was put right earlier this year. Perhaps I shall preserve my amateur status if I say that I had strong feelings about that—so much so that they carried me into the Lobby against the Government and into one of several agonising talks with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was then the Chief Whip.
Running parallel with the enormous sums of money that I have mentioned are a series of terribly difficult decisions for the future. I respect those who have to take those decisions. However, I invite them to bear in mind that, whatever decision is made this year and the years ahead,

it is not enough to demand increases all the time. Someone must pay for them. We have to earn everything that we give to those in need. Someone always has to pay, and we must never forget that. The more our country earns, the more it can afford in that regard.
The other side of the coin is that, in assessing such issues, there must be a serious — if not obvious —reluctance to cut assistance to the less well off. It is a tribute to the Government and to the British people that so far we have carried a high level of unemployment remarkably well. We have won an election with no fewer than 3·5 million unemployed. That is a new reality. It would have been unheard of 10 years ago. Above all, we won that election because we looked after the unemployed. That is most important. There may be higher unemployment in the forseeable future, but we hope that reductions will occur. However, with advanced technology and the world problems that we face, one does not need to be a genius to foresee that there may be higher unemployment. That being so, we have a serious duty to care. That caring mentality is a vital part of this Government's political image.
I shall address myself, first, to the National Health Service. The debate would be empty without mention of the Government's achievement. I dare say that my hon. and learned Friend may touch on it, but it is for Back Benchers to salute the Government's achievement in overall expenditure on the NHS. We are all familiar with the figures. My hon. Friends and I mentioned them during the election campaign, and we have heard them again since then. However, they will forgive me for mentioning that the increase in total expenditure on the NHS has increased from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to £15·5 billion in 1983–84, and that there are many more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists. I shall spare my hon. Friends the figures, as I am sure that they know them by heart, just as I do.
The thing that worries us all is the danger of the bottomless pit. The more we give, the more people rightly expect. The more that we advance medically, the more treatments and drugs that can be offered, the more patients can be treated, and so on. But, at the end of the day, we can provide only what the nation can afford.
I congratulate the Government on the follow-through to the February 1983 circular and on testing the cost effectiveness of the cleaning, laundry and catering services. I understand that possible savings of about £800 million are involved, which will be used for patient care. Such matters are not easy, and obviously the unions involved are very disturbed. Like me, other hon. Members probably encountered NHS employees during the election campaign who were extremely anxious. Nevertheless, the Government should press ahead firmly.
Partnership with the private sector is an important aspect of Government policy. Nowadays, 4 million people, including many trade unionists, are covered by private insurance. They have sensibly been introduced to it by their unions, and they are very welcome. There is nothing to be ashamed about. Rather, it is a matter for rejoicing. The more private care that is supplied, the freer the public sector is to provide for those who remain in the greatest need. Pay beds provide an income of £52·5 million, which goes straight into the NHS.
In nursing homes for the elderly, well over half of the total number of beds are in the private sector. The use of those beds frees much-needed beds in the public sector.


We must encourage this partnership. I know that there has been recent legislation, but we should also take careful control of the licensing requirements for those who take care of the elderly, not only in nursing homes, but, perhaps more importantly, in rest homes.
An enormous challenge for the future, which engulfs both the private and the public sectors, is the care of the elderly. In terms of increased expenditure and demand, this will be a matter of all hands on deck. It is an enormous growth area. In 2001 there will be 493,000 more people aged over 75 and 288,000 more people aged over 85 who will need increasing care and services. That may cause great anxiety to those who address their minds to the subject.
I shall say a few words about care in the community, following the 1981 consultative document, and the importance of joint funding between the Department of Health and Social Security and local government. That vital development should be encouraged. I wish that it did not have to be encouraged, because this money is spent in the same cause, as it leads to problems, the most obvious of which is the possible conflict between two budgets with different priorities.
We are dealing with two great Departments of state —the DHSS and the Department of the Environment. There are also difficulties in the balance between central and local government. Although many councils wish to commit funds to jointly funded projects, they may not be able to do so because of local or national priorities, or a combination of both. That is becoming an increasing problem. Authorities enter jointly funded projects, but, for one reason or another, local economies take place. That will happen increasingly in the years ahead.
There are difficulties with the taking up of revenue costs. After necessary expenditure on a given project is taken up — I am aware that we are dealing with a graduated take-up of seven years or however long it may be, but seven years is a long time—it is a considerable strain on local authorities. That must be borne in mind, as must changed circumstances.
As an example, in my county—I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend to reply to it now, although I dare say that he is familiar with it — we have the Worcester development project, which is a pilot project to put the mentally ill into the community. That was financially dependent on the sale of a former site, Powick hospital. The sale has not been achieved, and the take-up of revenue costs has been altered.
No hon. Member would permit me not to mention and congratulate all those who, by their voluntary effort, help in all those areas. I welcome the Government's support, not least in the form of tax advantages in the 1980 and 1983 Budgets.
We must care for pensioners and the unemployed. The main success of the Government, and central to their economic strategy, has been the lowering of inflation. This will increasingly be seen as an enormous help in dealing with all these matters.
It has been a pleasure for me to open this important debate on this vital subject. I hope that we find enough money for the necessary projects.

Mr. Tony Favell: This [s a maiden speech, which I did not expect to be making at this hour. My constituency is formed from two former constituencies

—Stockport, North and Stockport, South. Stockport, South was represented by Tom McNally, who was well thought of. Throughout the campaign I heard nothing but good said about him, and I wish him well. Stockport, North was represented by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who sits on the Labour Benches. I am glad that he has made me welcome. I have been made welcome also by other Members within the metropolitan district of Stockport—my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold)—and I am grateful to them.
Stockport is a fine town in the north-west which I am proud to represent. It is ideally placed between the industrial and commercial centres of the north-west region and the magnificent countryside of the Pennines. It has first-class communications, being less than 10 miles from Manchester international airport and the motorway system takes drivers literally within yards of what is regarded as one of the finest—if not the finest—shopping areas in the Greater Manchester area.
Over the years Stockport has diversified from cotton into high technology industries—engineering, plastics, foodstuffs and printing. This diversification has meant that there are far fewer unemployed in Stockport than in almost any other town in the north-west. Having adapted to modern-day needs, it looks forward to the future with confidence.
Unfortunately, the social security has not adapted at the same time. I feel that we have spent far too much time wondering about where extra money is to come from and far too little about making it more efficient. If we had thought about how we could save on the cost of distribution, we should have more to spend on the poor, the sick and the old.
Savings have been made. A great start has been made recently with the new sick pay scheme, which, it is estimated, will save about 3,000 Civil Service jobs, for which the Government are to be highly commended. The new housing benefit scheme may save 700 or 800 lobs. I suggest that far greater savings could be made if we were to invoke a sensible tax credit scheme. No doubt, we shall soon hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) outline that scheme, and therefore I shall not go into it in great length but I wish to make a number of points. First, the scheme would combine the PAYE and social security schemes. Secondly, it would take hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people off supplementary benefit. Thirdly, it would largely remove the need for family income supplement. When the proposal for a tax credit scheme was introduced in a Green Paper in 1972, it was estimated that eventually between 10,000 and 15,000 Civil Service jobs would be saved.
Our welfare benefit system is now even more complicated, and I suggest that the number of jobs saved would now be nearer to 15,000 than to 10,000. This will mean not just 10,000 salaries saved but a saving in the offices and equipment used by those civil servants. The savings on administration could run into hundreds of millions of pounds. The change would not be easy, but the long-term benefit would be enormous.
The elimination of family income supplement alone would greatly reduce man hours on, for example, the calculation of fares to hospitals, free school meals, dental and optical treatment, free prescriptions, and milk and vitamins for pregnant mothers.
I commend to the House the Green Paper published in 1972 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services, which said:
A system of tax credits would simplify the tax system and its administration, saving many thousands of civil service posts. It would increase the incomes of many who are hard-pressed. It would do so without the need for a means test. It would rationalise the system of family support. It would reduce reliance on supplementary benefit and would largely remove the need for a FIS scheme. And, given the will, it could achieve this at a cost that could be managed. The Government therefore commend the proposals as being the best approach to a solution of the problems of the tax and social security systems.
Those problems are still with us. They are worse now than they were then. I commend that scheme. It is as valid today as it was then.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am particularly happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who made a notable maiden speech which I hope will attract the attention that it deserves. I am naturally delighted that he should be campaigning on behalf of a subject for which I have myself campaigned for many years. He did so with style, knowledge and assurance. I am sure that all hon. Members who heard him, and many others who will read his speech, will look forward to his next contribution. I hope that he will continue to fight on this subject.
I should also like to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) who has been taking an increased interest in the subject. He did not expect that he would have the privilege of opening a three-hour debate at this difficult hour, but he rose to the challenge in a way that I appreciated. I hope that the Department has taken particular note of what he said about the National Health Service, which I do not intend to deal with.
The financing of the social services raises immediately the question that I have asked on previous occasions: who is paying what, to whom and why? I feel that the Chancellor should publish his accounts in a new form. It is a proposal which has been recommended in a recent leader in The Times and I believe has significant support in the Treasury. It is a matter upon which I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the initiative.
I should like my right hon. Friend to make a clear distinction between the Government's spending on current account, showing where the money comes from; the Government's spending on capital account and where the capital is raised; and the transfer account by which the Government churn money round but do not spend it.
I received a disappointing parliamentary answer today from the Chancellor in reply to a question, when I suggested that he might publish information and tables showing Government expenditure under those three headings. He referred me to an article in Economic Trends in 1981, which merely analyses data from the family expenditure survey and does not attempt to deal with the information that the Government must have as to what they are doing about the redistribution of income.
My view is that it is important not to speak of pensions, child benefit, unemployment insurance and the rest as Government expenditure in the sloppy way that we do,

because the Government do not spend that money. The pensioners, the mothers or the unemployed spend it at their own discretion. That money is not, properly speaking, Government expenditure, but the way in which the Government draw the money out of the system and hand it back can create significant effects on the propensity to work, to consume and to save. This is an aspect of the Government's intervention in the working of the economy that the House should study. We should be given more accurate and precise data on which to base our examination of what is happening. I suggest that if the information were published on the lines that I have recommended, it would be just as interesting and important for Ministers as it would be for Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
It is a commonplace, as we all have to admit, that the economy is in bad balance. We are consuming too much —particularly imports—and we are producing too little. We are saving too little, adapting too slowly, giving too much effort, particularly in the public sector, to repeating old routines, and not giving enough attention to innovation. The way in which we operate the support system for incomes accentuates all these faults in the economy. The redistribution of income industry, which must occupy hundreds of thousands of people, is as much in need of drastic overhaul, modernisation and slimming down as any of the long-established industries in the private sector, and any of the public industries, such as steel, which have been shown in recent years to be grossly overmanned and obsolete by exposure to the forces of competition.
However, there are no effective powers of competition to the redistribution of income industry. It operates according to its own rules, to a great extent, and we cannot examine its efficiency by comparison with similar industries in other countries. There has been some revival of the private sector as a form of competition, but it is partial and incomplete. We need the opportunity to make a real examination. A situation has now arisen which is sure to draw the attention of the House to the operation of the redistribution of income. We know that the Government are looking for ways of saving a large sum of public expenditure, and it seems that the social services are under attack.
I shall take an example to illustrate the point that I am making. It may be a fanciful one, but it makes my point. Let us imagine that 100 people, more or less at random, were chosen to stand in a circle and that each was asked to hand £1 to the person standing on their right. When they saw the object of the game, they would probably be quite willing to do so, because they would see that nobody was suffering and everybody would gain as much as they lost.
Having done it once, we might persuade those same people to do it with £10. They would probably agree if they had the money on them. We might even ask them to do it with £100, which would create a few more difficulties, but it might be possible to imagine a redistribution cycle in which everybody was benefiting in the same way as everybody else.
Let us imagine what would happen if we said to this group of people instead that we wanted to start on a different basis—that we wanted some of them to put £1 in the hands of the man on their right, some of them £10, some £100 and others nothing. The game would soon


break down, and there would be chaos. That is a little image of the redistribution of income as we are now conducting it.
We have lost sight of the principles. People do not know who is paying what, to whom and why. Unless the Government can provide an acceptable and rational explanation for why some of us part with money, others receive money and the majority do both simultaneously —for example, taxpayers who receive child benefit—there will be increasing friction and resentment about what the Government are doing. We must have clarity as to the Government's intentions. We must clear away the years of obscurity that have made it almost impossible for members of the public—or hon. Members of this House — to discern what is actually happening about the financing of the social services.
The social services have turned into something like a bran tub with prizes for the people who are roughest, reach furthest or work longest to extract the benefits. On the other hand, taxation has become for almost everybody an imposition which is seen to be unfair and felt to be essentially and deeply unjust. Socially and politically, those are two extremely bad developments. Everyone thinks that he is paying too much tax and that others are not paying the taxes that they ought to pay. That causes resentment in itself. At the same time, many people think that others are gaining too much in benefits and that too much money is spent on welfare. That also causes resentment. Our comprehension of what the Government are doing has been clouded, and the result has been extremely disadvantageous and disruptive to the unity of society.
When the Government start to tinker with this unhappy system, which we reluctantly accept and mostly criticise, there are outbursts of intense opposition. Such resentment leads to worse dangers of tax evasion and social security frauds, which are becoming increasingly widespread and socially acceptable. I implore my right hon. Friends to publish the figures showing how expenditure on income support has grown, how it may grow in future and what the Govermnent's intensions really are. They must make clear the basis on which public money is allocated between one citizen and other.
I hope that the Minister shares my view that a clear statement of intention is needed from the Government so that the public can understand how the Government intend to deal with the redistribution of income.
I would like to touch briefly on the principles by which money can be redistributed, so that we can see what we are aiming to finance, what the Government are trying to pay for and where savings can be made. We could have a universal system of benefit, such as child benefit, which relates to citizenship. I was delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech a few weeks ago say that child benefit was a keystone in the Government's policy. I felt that that must be the position, but it was good to hear him affirm it.
The concept of insurance was another great innovation that was brought into the finances of the social services at about the turn of the century. The idea is that one is entitled to receive benefits not because of need but on the strength of contributions made over the course of time. That concept has entitled people to receive benefits at certain phases in their life-cycle without proof of need. The insurance concept was a great step forward when it

was introduced, and it is tragic that it has broken down. We still have the trappings of an insurance system, and important benefits such as unemployment benefit, are paid with deference to the insurance principle. Unfortunately, the scope for that is rapidly diminishing.
Going back still further, William Pitt introduced a kind of secret or negative welfare state into the tax system. As long ago as 1798, the proposal for the introduction of income tax embodied the idea of child benefit. Pitt was so far sighted that he included in the tax system from the outset the concept that a man with children to support must be allowed to bear a smaller tax burden than a man without such family responsibilities. That was, as it were, a left-handed way of redistributing income by diminishing the liability to contribute to income tax for those who were felt to have the larger obligations.
Even further back, the Elizabethan poor law was based on the principle of giving selective assistance to those established as being in need.
We still operate all those systems, but in a muddled way. A large element of relief of need is based on the Elizabethan poor law principle. We have an income tax system which has been partially cleaned up in gradual pursuit of the idea of a tax credit scheme but which still has very large negative allowances; a national insurance system which is tottering but is still maintained as a kind of magic formula by the Government; and we have a universal child benefit in place of the family allowance, together with some other examples in which the principle of universality has been accepted. Thus, in financing the social services the Government are applying four completely different principles evolved over time, but they are not declaring their hand as to which is to be the basis for redistribution of income in the future.
I said that the insurance principle had failed. I shall say a little more about that, although it is a subject on which my views are well known to the House. It was a fine idea that flat rate contributions should finance flat rate benefits, albeit with a large element of Government subsidy. That was the original concept that inspired Winston Churchill and Lloyd George 70 or 80 years ago. Since then there has been enormous growth in the demand for income support, and I welcome that. The awakening of our social conscience to the need to support the destitute, the disadvantaged, the invalids and so on was right. The inevitable consequence of it, however, has been that flat rate contributions cannot possibly provide sufficient money, even when substantial elements of Government subsidy are introduced here, there and everywhere in the scheme.
A few years ago, the House recognised that flat-rate contributions for national insurance made no sense and had to be abandoned. We then went over to the principle of earnings-related national insurance contributions; but it was really no more than a farcical gesture to the insurance principle, as it now operates on a system totally unlike any other insurance principle and is not in fact an insurance principle at all. The national insurance system is financed out of income tax, but, to maintain the illusion, part of the money collected through PAYE is described as the national insurance contribution.
Many other aspects of the national insurance scheme prove that the time has come to wind it up at once to stop all the time wasting and the irritating, pettyfogging aspects of its operation, which no longer maintain the illusion of


independence for the beneficiaries and merely add to the inefficiency of the entire redistribution of income operation.
In the increasingly difficult economic circumstances of recent years, the Government have in practice returned to selectivity while retaining the trappings of insurance and maintaining the universal benefit system as far as it has gone. But where has that reversion to selectivity taken us? Many people who have studied the whole question, albeit rather superficially, have concluded that selective benefits are the correct answer, that they are intrinsically right and that subsequent developments in the principles of benefit have been wrong. They are so anxious to achieve a system where the finance of welfare is reduced to its bare minimum that they have shut their eyes to the consequences of selectivity.
Where has the reversion to the principle of selectivity brought us in recent years? We all know about the poverty trap—the inevitable consequence of applying benefits selectively. We all know about the "Why work?" syndrome. The facts are incontrovertible and often published, and there is no question but that large numbers of the population are affected.
There is also the problem that for many people there is no point in saving or joining an occupational pension scheme because, by the time they retire, if they have deprived themselves during their careers in order to save, they discover that they have simply excluded themselves from benefits which would be available to them immediately had they not saved or joined an occupational pension scheme.
More than 7 million people are now dependent on supplementary benefit. This scheme is therefore not just a safety net kept ready for a small fraction of the population which, for one reason or another, is not self-reliant and unable to look after itself. People who advocate selectivity envisage a Utopian society where almost everyone is self-reliant, able to look after himself, his wife and family, to save, to be independent and to owe nothing to the community. In this vision it is recognised that an element in the population will be unable to rise to such a level of self-reliance and will need help; but it is hoped that it will be small.
I have heard speeches from hon. Members explaining the difference between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, as though both were small categories of need which could be dealt with without destroying the principle that the British population is basically self-reliant and independent. I reject that line of thought, because the facts make it impossible to accept such thinking.
Now that we have over 7 million on supplementary benefit, we have again created two nations—those in work and those in need. We cannot continue like this. The number of people on supplementary benefit is increasing. The Government's policies are increasing the number and we have no hope of arriving at a time when the number will be sharply reduced.
If my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health disagrees, perhaps he will say when he expects the number of people dependent on supplementary benefit to fall below 6 million, 5 million, 4 million, 3 million, 2 million and 1 million. Even 1 million people on supplementary benefit is infinitely more than we should be willing to tolerate in our society.
The aim of selectivity is to assist one of the Government's important aims — the reduction of the burden of taxation so that it is no longer a disincentive to work. Although the financing of selective benefits calls for a lower level of Government activity at the money raising end of the redistribution function, and therefore seems to assist the financing of the social services at minimum cost, it creates effects that are the precise opposite of the Government's much-praised and often-stated aims of hard work, thrift and self-reliance. Those aims are sacrificed while we persist with the policy of selective benefits.
Millions of people have been drawn into a humiliating dependency from which it is demonstrably fruitless to strive to release themselves. That should not be allowed to continue, and it must not be made worse by ill-considered Treasury pressure on the DHSS at the present time.
Can we cure the problems being created by the application of the selective principle? Can we apply it in a more subtle manner and so dispose of its disadvantages? Or do we have to reconcile ourselves to high rates of taxation of income to finance the social services? An effort is being made to raise the tax threshold so that at the point where people enter work again on low incomes or where people on low incomes have the opportunity of bettering themselves by obtaining a small increase in their earnings, the tax burden does not apply in such a way as to hamper or frustrate their interest in harder work.
There is a move to limit or even to cut the benefits of the unemployed, so that the gap can be increased in that way. We may also see the introduction of a national minimum wage, which would have the effect of raising the point at which people enter work, to achieve the concept of clear water between what people receive when they are out of work and what they receive in a full-time job.
I have studied the facts in considerable detail, and I believe that it is not possible to create clear water between what people receive when they are out of work and what they may earn when they re-enter employment, unless we take dramatic steps to make income tax yield more from the better off—even at lower basic rates of tax—at the same time as we lift the tax burden from the lower paid. We need a large yield from income tax, even if we arrange matters so that at the lower level of income the tax burden appears to be reduced.
To create that area of clear water we must do a number of other things, some of which are socially unacceptable. It will be necessary to end the favourable treatment of husband and wife who are both at work and have no dependants. I have advocated that for a long time. Few people would regard it as wrong if the Government were to tread that path; but it is not possible to find the necessary money to end the various tax disadvantages at the point where people at the low end of the scale have to be encouraged to save and to work, unless we also do other things that are not likely to be acceptable.
It will be necessary to end mortgage interest relief and the concessions to life insurance, which largely diminish the amount of the real yield from income tax. It will be necessary to cut the standards of living of the unemployed in a way that would cause serious social unrest. It will also be necessary to impose a national minimum wage at a level that would put many more people out of work. I hardly have to say more to convince the House that I do not favour the application of the principle of selectivity in financing the social services.
Of course, the principle can be applied — and is applied—in a half rate manner. For instance, a half rate selectivity exists in the administration of the family income supplement. As someone improves himself, if he is in receipt of family income supplement, there is a long delay before he loses his entitlement, and then he loses only 50 per cent. of his benefit. It is like a 50 per cent. tax, but it operates in such a way that, when he loses the benefit, it overlaps with entry into the income tax system. There is the simultaneous burden of the loss of benefit and the loss of earnings through tax. That system means, yet again, a return to the disincentive effect.
Should we aim to provide a social system which gives a basic income guarantee to every citizen? That is the ideal of universal benefit. In point of fact it is what we do at present. It is not so monstrous, because very few people in Britain fall below the minimum standards which we think it necessary for a citizen to have because the forms of relief which we offer fail to reach them. A regrettable number of people live below the supplementary benefit level for one reason or another, but we are, in a rough and ready manner, applying the principle of the basic income guarantee to every British citizen as best we can.
Let us suppose that the Government were to go over to a basic income guarantee or tax credit scheme as a matter of policy. There is no reason why it should be introduced in such a way as to add enormously to the burden of financing the social services. I have discussed this with my right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom pay tribute to the idea of tax credit and agree that it is a Conservative party commitment, but they say that it is not possible to introduce it in today's circumstances because it would be too dear. They take the view that it must wait many years — at least until the computerisation of the existing PAYE system is completed. If a basic income guarantee system were introduced, the computerisation of PAYE would be superfluous, so I do not respect that argument.
The question is whether such a scheme would involve great cost. There is no reason why it should not be introduced in such a way as to leave most people where they are now on the static balance. From the dynamic view we must imagine what would happen in the economy after the reform had been achieved. I believe the results would be fruitful. There would be great advantages in terms of the Government's objectives, except in one respect. There would be more incentive to work, more incentive to save and a greater degree of self-reliance among citizens. They would all feel free to better themselves. There would be huge savings in casework and administration, and we would come back to the ideal of one nation in contribution and in benefit.
We would, on the other hand, be bound to accept a high marginal rate of income tax. The actual burden of income tax would not be increased, but the marginal rate of tax would have to be at least as high as it is now, taking into account national insurance contribution, the employer's contribution and the national insurance surcharge.
The Government have to face that problem. They have to make a choice between their incompatible objectives. It is a matter of balance whether they go for low taxes and low benefits or accept a higher rate of tax to finance a range of social services which is more in line with public expectations and demands.
If one wanted to over simplify, one could say that the Government have to make the choice between love and money. They must choose whether to look to the people

who want to take more out of the system for themselves or to pay attention to those who are willing to afford a generous level of transfer from those who have to those who need.
We must call on the Chancellor and other responsible Ministers to clarify the facts, to make known their principles, and then to let the public make the choice.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I stand here for the first time as the somewhat improbable result of an enforced union between the old constituencies of Rochester and Chatham and Maidstone. My godfather was the Boundary Commission, which ordained that the new constituency of Mid-Kent should be created out of parts of the other two. I am both delighted and proud to be here to represent it.
Like all the new Members to whom I have spoken, I have been warmed by the kindness to us of right hon. and hon. Members, but few could have been more assiduous in their kindness than my two predecessors. It will be my earnest endeavour to try to ensure that the constituents they have bequeathed to me will not suffer any loss from the change.
I have always heard it said that this is a difficult place in which to speak, not least because one always finds that what one wanted to say has been better said before one rises to speak. I cannot believe that it can often happen to a maiden speaker that he is called upon to follow a speech of such profundity, originality and wisdom as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). If I find myself repeating in an inferior way some of those sentiments, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I support the call for a fundamental change in the manner of financing the social services. As every Member knows, the potential demand for social services is infinite. Even if, as experience has taught us, the limits of what can be achieved by statutory services in the relief of misery are often disappointingly narrow, the optimism of compassion is reluctant to accept those limits and the temptation to try to create a "Ministry of Happiness" is one to which legislators and administrators are both prone. Yet the reality is that already the foreseeable demand outruns the foreseeable supply. We have a clear duty to consider the social services' budget this year, next year and to the end of the century and to find new ways of balancing the books. Otherwise, in a desperate attempt to make do and mend, to meet for example, the needs of the rapidly growing number of people in their eighties and nineties, we shall destroy all that we and our predecessors have tried to build.
All of us know that national insurance is not an insurance scheme. It is a pay-as-you-go taxation system. What is more, each time the employer's contribution is increased to pay for the services, more employees are dropped off the firm's payroll to add their claims to the pool. Everyone likewise knows that the eligibility system for benefits and services works in a way that penalises the principles of thrift and self-help which the Conservative party admires. "Unearned income" is a wicked phrase. It was coined by feckless and envious grasshoppers to give them an excuse to raid the larders of the frugal and conscientious ants who believed in setting something aside for their old age or against misfortune.
There is something obscene in a system which says, "Because you have frittered away every penny that you


have earned you can have at once this service or that benefit, while you who have put by some of your earnings must wait or get less."
During the five years that I worked in Conservative Central Office much time and creative energy was spent on trying to devise a better system of collecting for and dispensing social services. In the end it was judged to be too expensive in the short term to make the change, but I believe that we must return to that effort. Otherwise, we shall find that every company in Britain will have its standing charges increased inexorably year by year, just when they should be coming down if these companies are to have any chance of competing.
In addition, we shall find that the pensions which millions of British people have scraped to set aside will be worthless on redemption and the party which rightly claims to believe in "a many generation society" will have sold our grandchildren's future to pay for our parents' old age.
All that I have sought to do tonight is to assert the need for a radical reassessment of the financing of the social services. I know that many of my hon. Friends will assent to that call, but the constraints are numerous and the difficulties immense. I end by mentioning two.
It is essential that we experiment with new concepts in the financing of the welfare state. I found myself in great sympathy with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. I also believe, however, that the 13·9 per cent. of Mid-Kent's population who are old-age pensioners or the near 14 per cent. who are unemployed will not take kindly to the proposition that they should be the chief or, indeed, the only guinea pigs in that experimentation. The challenge is huge, but it is essential that we do not run away from it.

Mr. Timothy Yeo: It is my pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his fluent and constructive maiden speech. I do so as one who went through the same experience three weeks ago, and I regret that there are not more hon. Members present to hear my hon. Friend. However, I am sure that his remarks will be widely noted and that both sides of the House will look forward eagerly to his future, no doubt distinguished, contributions.
I welcome the debate, even though it is so thinly attended by a small band of insomniacs. I hope that I can stay awake for the next 10 minutes! It provides an opportunity for us to reiterate the absolute commitment of the Conservative party to the National Health Service and the social security system. I am sure that, like me, many of my hon. Friends spent much of the election campaign reiterating that commitment.
Our commitment extends to the basic principles underlying the way in which the NHS and social security benefits are financed. I am sure that there is agreement on both sides of the House that the primary source of finance for our social services must be taxation.
At the heart of Conservative party philosophy there has always been the recognition that the state must provide for those members of the community who are unable to provide for themselves. That recognition dates from long

before the existence of the Labour party and I believe that it will remain part of the Conservative Party's philosophy long after the Labour party has disappeared.
In reaffirming our commitment to state financing for the social services, we do not insist that that should be the only method of finance. It is also part of our philosophy that those who can afford to pay for services should be encouraged, if not forced, to pay for them. Just as we support the mixed economy, we support those who wish to make private medical provision. By doing so, they significantly reduce the burden on the state and the taxpayer. It is right that private medical insurance should be available to those who wish to pay for it, and it is directly in the interests of all NHS patients that that should be the case.
The picture in the social security system is more confused. I do not wish to trespass for too long on the ground so skilfully and professionally mapped out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), but we accept the principle that benefits must be financed from statutory sources.
Despite that, there is the curious situation that a major part of the social security system has been based on the national insurance scheme and the contributory principle whih goes with it. The operation of that principle means that many of the most disadvantaged groups, such as single parents, disabled people and some categories of married women, are excluded. The need arises for other types of benefit, such as the non-contributory invalidity benefit, that meet the needs of those who have been unable to build up a contribution record to qualify for the national insurance benefits.
It is a myth to say that our social security system depends on national insurance contributions, because the non-contributory benefits are an essential and accepted part of the whole system. There are, therefore, strong grounds for saying that the system needs to be overhauled and replaced by a single and unified system of noncontributory benefits. In the medium-term, this would be simpler for those who are entitled to benefit, and we might achieve a higher percentage of claims because those working with, for example, disabled people appreciate how many potential beneficiaries do not claim entitlement either because they are not aware of them or they do not understand the system.
A system along these lines would be more convenient and cheaper to administer. And if it could be integrated within the tax system, a major step forward would have been taken. We would be going at least some way towards overcoming the present absurdity whereby people who are unemployed or earning less than the average wage face an effective marginal rate of tax, taking into account both taxation and loss of benefit, which can in some cases be much higher than those on very large incomes indeed. It is not good enough for administrators simply to say that such a revision of the system is not feasible because the advantages are clear. It is just a question of applying sufficient political will.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) about unemployment benefit. I hope that we shall be spared any further agonising on this subject in future. There is strong feeling in all parts of the House about the importance of maintaining unemployment benefit in real terms for the large number of people who are in perhaps the most disadvantaged group of all.
The consideration of how to finance the social services cannot be divorced from how those services are delivered. We must continue to direct our efforts towards efficiency. There is still a great deal of persistent and widespread evidence of inefficiency and poor management in the NHS. There are still too many examples of large capital assets remaining in the hands of health authorities and not being utilised. A drive to dispose of surplus land and buildings is needed, for the sale of these assets could provide a major source of finance.
To quote from the recent and still topical example of the Tadworth Court children's hospital, a detailed study of the financial position of that hospital showed that about 15 per cent. of its revenue costs were capable of being generated by the interest on the proceeds from the sale of surplus assets around the hospital. I wonder how many other examples we should find if we carried out a similar financial analysis of the position of other hospitals? Think how many additional benefits could thereby be provided for the needy members of the community just by realising surplus assets. Those benefits could be provided without any additional cost on the taxpayer.
Reference was made to the Government's policy of care in the community and of joint funding. The care in the community policy has always had my support and that of most of the professional and voluntary organisations working in this area. But we must recognise that, if it is to be successful on a large scale, the policy of care in the community depends heavily on the ability of local authorities to provide and finance the supporting services in the community.
While joint funding is helpful, many local authorities are understandably concerned — it is true, to my knowledge, in Suffolk — about the eventual financial burden which may fall on them as they accept responsibility, especially, for example, for mentally handicapped people, who are one of the Government's declared priority groups. I hope that the Minister will go as far as he can in future in enabling revenue funding to be transferred from the health authorities to local authorities on a per capita basis for the mentally handicapped who are leaving the outmoded and unsuitable institutional environment of long-stay hospitals with the full support of the Government. The unsuitability of that environment was highlighted again only last week by disclosures in the press.
I do not suggest that voluntary organisations can step in to take over the functions of basic social security provision. We are agreed that that must remain the Government's responsibility. However, voluntary organisations in Britain have a long and distinguished tradition of innovation and experiment in social services. There are many benefits and practical provisions of care for both the elderly and the disabled which owe their origin to the voluntary organisations, and it is entirely right that that is so. The state is not well equipped to play the role of innovator. It is not equipped to do so by its decision-making mechanism, and there are proper constraints on the uses to which state funds can be put. But voluntary organisations, which are often run by the consumers of the social services, or by their families, are often in a better position to know what is needed by way of new services. They know what can be done because families do not take no for an answer. Those people are willing to risk their energies and devote their resources to proving that new

services can be innovated. This is a most effective form of innovation that is carried out by voluntary organisations at a minimal cost to the taxpayer.
We are in a period which by common consent is unlikely to see major growth in real terms of expenditure on the social services. That being so, it is all the more important that we make the most of the resources that we have. By allowing private provision for those who can afford it, by simplifying and unifying our system of benefits, by striving throughout for greater efficiency and a proper role for the voluntary sector, we can ensure that social services develop and prosper despite the limit that exists on total resources.

Mr. Derek Foster: The hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) can hardly have expected the debate to be of such great quality when he initiated it, or that two maiden speeches would be delivered within it. They were maiden speakers of extremely high quality. I compliment the hon. Members for Stockport (Mr. Favell) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on their fluency, commitment and obvious knowledge and experience in these areas. We look forward to their contributions in the near future.
The hon. Member for Leominster said that he was an amateur in these matters. If that is true, thank God for the amateurs. He brought a tone of common sense to the debate, but that is not to pour scorn upon the professionals. We have had what has already been described as a profound and wise speech from the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). That can be expected from the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge and experience and his reflective and thoughtful contributions, for which we thank him.
It is right that we should have a debate on this subject now, even if it is early it the morning. No greater issue faces society and the Government. It faces all Governments and it is the acid test of the quality of our civilisation and the extent of our caring—a word that several hon. Members have used. It is important to examine what Governments do as well as to scrutinise their intentions.
The financing of the social services is a problem for all Governments as there are constraints on the Government's income. They are constrained by the extent to which people are prepared to pay taxes and rates, by the extent to which they achieve economic growth — successive Governments have not distinguished themselves in that respect recently—the extent to which they can borrow to fund the national debt and the extent to which they are prepared to levy charges for the services that are provided.
I should like to refer to the third special report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee entitled, "The Structure of Personal Income Taxation and Income Support". It is an important document which covered some of the points that the hon. Member for Kensington covered. It says that, 35 years after its introduction, the national insurance system still does not prevent widespread dependence on means-tested benefits. For many of them, the rate of take-up is well below 100 per cent. Moreover, child benefit has not prevented the persistence of poverty among families and, in 1979, more than 6 million people were at or below supplementary benefit level. The report states more generally that there is widely held anxiety about the level of taxation on the


average wage earner and the way in which it has risen under successive Governments. It is not merely that the tax burden has risen overall; there has been a redistribution of that burden. Taxes have increased relatively more in the middle than at the top.
There is also a problem because of growth in demand. The demand for benefits and services has become almost insatiable. During 1971–81, the number of people of pensionable age increased by 10 per cent. whereas the general population increased by only 0.6 per cent. and pensioner households increased by 18 per cent. whereas others increased by only 10 per cent. In the same period, one-parent families increased by 71 per cent. That is the equivalent of 6 per cent. per annum. That is an enormous escalation in the demand for benefits and services. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the National Health Service needs about a 1 per cent. per annum increase in expenditure to contain demographic growth. That would not provide for an improvement in the service.
It has recently been stated that the personal social services need something like a 2·5 per cent. growth per annum to achieve the same sort of objective.
In society at large we have been more efficient in recent years at identifying need. Perhaps I could put in a word for those much maligned people—community and social workers, and social scientists. It always seemed entirely laudable to me that people should be anxious to discover need, and should commit themselves to both finding and to meeting it. The meeting of social needs is every bit as laudable as meeting the needs of the market. Of course, it is more expensive and must be met from the public sector, but it is a laudable objective. I notice that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has devoted much of his professional life to that.
The problem may exist for all Governments, but it is especially hard for this Conservative Government, because of their sado monetarism, to repeat the description used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Indeed, I hope that I am permitted that expression at so early an hour of the morning. The Government came to power in 1979 determined to squeeze inflation out of the system. That involved, as we have been told ad nauseam, controlling the money supply, which in turn involved cutting Government borrowing. That meant, and will continue to mean as long as the Government are in power, reducing public expenditure. To begin with, we were told that that could all be done by eliminating waste. Do we remember those heady days of the 1979 election, when public expenditure could be cut quite painlessly, and when there was no need to cut services? It could all apparently be done by the elimination of waste in the public sector. Those of us who had worked in the public sector knew that even though there may be waste to eliminate, it was very ambitious to think that it could be eliminated that quickly and easily. We were proved right.
In controlling the money supply, cutting borrowing and reducing public expenditure with the objective of tax and rate reductions, the Government — both in 1979 and 1983—are severely constraining their ability to fund the social services just when demand is increasing rapidly for the reasons that I have given. In addition, there has been a rapid increase in demand because of the growth in unemployment, which some of us believe is not

unconnected with the economic and financial strategy that the Government have pursued since 1979. There has been a growth in unemployment from 1·3 million in 1979 to more than 3 million in 1983. That represents a tremendous waste of human potential—a matter of regret to all hon. Members—and a very expensive waste at that.
During the recent election the Prime Minister pretended that the cost of unemployment was merely £5·5 billion. I say "merely", but that is high enough. However, that is just the cost of social security benefits to the unemployed. A Treasury report in February 1981 estimated that the cost of unemployment per person was £3,400. The report on unemployment from the House of Lords Select Committee calculated that for 1982–83 the cost was between £4,500 and £5,000 per year, which would have meant at that time, £13 billion. More recent estimates have suggested that it costs between £19 billion and £21 billion. Those estimates do not include the multiplier effect of having so many unemployed. It seems to many Labour Members that the Government have got themselves into a vicious circle of constrained finances and escalating demand.
I have tried to outline the Government's objectives, but from their record one sees that they have increased the tax burden from 44 per cent. to 48 per cent. of income for the average earner. They have increased the percentage of public expenditure in the GDP. They have increased, we read in The Observer this week, the volume of public expenditure by about 6·5 per cent. from 1978–79 to 1983–84. They have increased substantially public expenditure in some sectors. Expenditure on law and order during that period increased by 30 per cent. Expenditure on agriculture—I cannot imagine that it was intended—increased by 24·75 per cent., and expenditure on defence increased by 23·5 per cent. At the same time as increasing those aspects of public expenditure, the House knows that there have been reductions in benefits. I shall not detain the House now by listing those reductions. An hon. Member referred to the painful experience of the 5 per cent. abatement of earnings-related supplement.
So we come to the present Cabinet battle. We have already been treated by the new Chancellor to £500 million of cuts, which has been agreed. We are told that there is a great battle for a further £5 billion worth of expenditure cuts, which will be meted out to the British public during the next financial year. The Chancellor, in a written answer, claimed that 57 per cent. of the social security programme is covered by the Government's pledges to compensate for price increases. That is an important pledge, but it means that 43 per cent. of the social security programme is not covered by those pledges, including the long-term rate of supplementary allowance and child benefit.
I can only concur with the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who said:
It is clear that child benefit, long-term supplementary allowance (including long-term sick and disabled and one-parent families) as well as maternity allowance, housing benefit and unemployment pay are excluded from any guarantee of protection against inflation.
He went on to say:
It would be entirely typical of this Government to cut the living standards of many of the most needy and defenceless people while handing out hundreds of millions of pounds to the most wealthy and the higher paid.
What a pity the Prime Minister did not tell us about that during the election campaign. What a pity she did not


come clean with the British people and tell us that she would cut public expenditure in that way. We remember all too vividly that she said, "The Health Service is safe with me". No doubt the Minister will explain to us how that can be in the face of such projected public expenditure cuts. The Prime Minister poured scorn upon Labour's charges of attacks on the welfare state and upon benefits.
There is no need to speak about the hidden manifesto this evening. We have no need to depend upon leaked documents. We even have no need to refer to the infamous Think Tank report. The expected attacks on the weakest and poorest are the inevitable consequences of the medium-term financial strategy and the values that underpin it.
The former Secretary of State for Transport has warned that current levels of public expenditure imply higher taxation. Government right hon. and hon. Members clearly want to cut taxation. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say
Some much worshipped and deeply sacred cows will have to be candidates for the slaughterhouse".
Why did the Government not tell us this at the election? I warn the Government and the Minister of State that they have no mandate, as hon. Gentlemen have said this evening, for cuts in the National Health Service, attacks on social services or cuts in benefits.
After listening to the many laudable sentiments of Conservative Members this evening, we expect some, if not all, to appear with us in the Lobbies at the appropriate time when we are trying to defend benefits, especially unemployment benefit, against what the Chancellor has in store for us.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on his good fortune in being allowed to introduce the debate, even if it has taken place at an unusual hour. He introduced a valuable and important debate and gave many of my hon. Friends the opportunity to make a contribution. He opened by explaining that he proposed to cover all the activities of the Department of Health and Social Security. He proceeded to do so, and I shall do my best to answer all the points that have been raised. However, we all appreciate that the Department is so vast that even in two hours we cannot do much more than touch the surface.
This is an unusual hour of the night at which to make a maiden speech, and it says a great deal for those who made maiden speeches that they showed enthusiasm for this subject. My hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Mr. Fayell) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made notable contributions. I am sure that we lock forward to them contributing often and, I hope, at more sensible hours.
I encountered my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport shortly after he arrived in the House, when he immediately began to lobby me, on behalf of his constituents, about deficiencies in the deputising services used by some general practitioners, and I hope to give him a response to that tomorrow. His maiden speech went much wider than that and showed a broad range of interests and originality.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent for many years and I always expected that, when he was elected to the House, he would make a notable

contribution. I have the pleasure of congratulating him and I look forward to his valuable contributions to all that the Conservative party has to offer in this context.
As the Minister who has been brought at this hour of the night to reply to the debate, I am proud to belong to a party which contains a group of Back Benchers who are capable of getting together to sustain a debate on social services policy for two hours. The Conservative party has not always been able to mount such an effort. This shows that at the moment our party is one of care and concern and is making the most original contributions to thought on the problems of social service policy.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), as the solitary representative of the Labour party Front Bench, made an eloquent contribution which did not contain new ideas or policies in this field. His party has destroyed any ideas on social policy. I suppose that this is one occasion when one should not comment too heavily on the fact that the Liberals and Social Democratic parties did not make a contribution to the debate. Since they emerged as a new alliance in politics I have heard nothing of any new policy on social matters from either of those parties, except an attempt to rehash some of the ideas about benefits and taxation on which many in the Conservative party were working in the 1970s. Some of them were mentioned by my hon. Friends during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster dealt in particular with the National Health Service, and I should mention that first. I confirm entirely the commitment which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) mentioned to the National Health Service. I agree with him entirely that we expect the financing of the National Health Service to continue to come largely from taxation. When we spoke during the election campaign about the National Health Service being safe with us, we were reaffirming that commitment and making it clear that it was untrue to suggest that we had any intention of changing the basis upon which the National Health Service was financed, and that remains the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster gave the details of our record during the past four years of increased spending on the National Health Service. I have no need to repeat it. It is pointless for people to try to undermine our commitment and record of spending by drawing exaggerated lessons from the £100 million that we took out of the cash limits in July this year.
As a result of those changes, total spending on the National Health Service this year remains as we planned at the time of the Budget. There is some increase in our forecast of spending on the family practitioner service and there is therefore a small decrease in the planned cash limits of £100 million out of a total of £8 billion for the hospital and community health services. It takes the hospital and community health services in real terms back to about the level of spend that they had for last year and does not represent any reduction on last year's spending. It is pointless to take those small adjustments, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did, and suggest that they somehow undermine our general record or our commitment to the future.
My hon. Friends were also right to mention that, apart from all our efforts to continue to raise as much as the economy can stand by way of taxation to finance the Health Service, it is nevertheless the case that almost limitless demands are made on the Health Service.


Everyone can see that, with demographic change, the pace of medical advance and the rising expectations of our population, the National Health Service has to try to cope with new needs.
For that reason, I agree with my hon. Friends who said that we must look not just at the level of spending to satisfy our desire for a reasonable level of Health Service but increasingly at the value that we receive from the money that we provide for the National Health Service. It is an essential part of a caring policy towards the Health Service that we continue to stress the need for efficiency, improved performance, constant change and development and the need to address ourselves to priorities all the time to ensure that we do our best to keep up with the needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned our policy of comparing the cost of support services in the Health Service by inviting competitive tenders from outside. It is an obvious way to ensure that we keep down to a minimum the costs of such services as laundry, cleaning, building maintenance and so on. Any money saved on those services can be released for the development of patient care.
We are consulting about a draft circular which is intended to guide health authorities on how to set about competitive tendering. There is no need for health authorities to wait for the final circular, and several health authorities are already showing an interest in tendering and are making progress. We shall shortly be producing the circular in its final form with the best advice that we can give to health authorities as to how best to procede with competitive tendering in various areas, and we hope to see progress in the year or two ahead.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leominster and for Suffolk, South also referred to our policy of partnership with the private sector in the provision of care. This is a part of our policy on which the Labour party made the greatest play during the election. It claimed that the policy was contained in a secret document that it had discovered, but it was a document that had been circulated two or three months before to regional chairmen. It contained much commonsense advice.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to ensure that one looks to the needs of the patients and ways in which one can avoid wasteful duplication of effort between the NHS and the private sector in the same geographical areas or the same specialties. We looked for ways in which they could co-operate sensibly with each other, for the benefit of the patients of both sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster was right to refer to the wide range of private sector provisions that we have to consider, and it is not merely a question of up-market hospitals in the big cities, but of many smaller private hospitals. Probably the biggest contribution in terms of quantity that the private sector makes to care is the many nursing homes for the elderly. It is to the private sector that we look for the great bulk of provision for nursing home accommodation for the growing numbers of elderly people.
It makes sense for the hospital service, with a growing number of elderly persons occupying beds in hospitals on a long-stay basis, to look for ways in which it might be able to provide more suitable care for the patients nearer their homes by taking places for those patients in private

homes for the elderly thus freeing the bed for another patient. That is one of the things about which we consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster was also right to remind us that, in addition to collaboration, we are anxious to make sure that the standards ofthe private sector are maintained. An Act in the last Parliament, carried through by this Government, with the long title the Health and Social Services and Social Securities Adjudication Act, contained an important provision for the licensing of private nursing homes, increasing the powers of the inspectorate, and making sure that all nursing homes maintained the high standard already achieved by the best.
All my hon. Friends who spoke about the Health Service referred to the need to provide care for the rising number of the elderly, and we give that a high priority in every way. We have stressed to all health authorities that care for the elderly, together with care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, must be the first national priority in the development of those services.
One final matter bears on value for money and improving the performance of the Health Service, and that came in a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South about the need for a drive to sell surplus land and make sure that no resources were locked up needlessly in buildings or land that should be disposed of for the best available price as quickly as possible, to get the resources to pay for the care.
My hon. Friend made a particular and topical reference to Tadworth court hospital. When, in another guise, he was working for the Spastics Society, he played a notable part in stepping in with proposals for the future of that hospital, which relied heavily on the fact that the hospital was surrounded by surplus land not being used for health purposes and for which there was no use. The key to unlocking the finances of the Spastics Society experiment with Tadworth court hospital lay in opening the way to dispose of that spare land and making use of those resources for health care.
I was talking about the elderly. With Tadworth court I am talking about respite care for families of mentally handicapped children, and I spoke of our priority of improving services for the mentally ill. As several of my hon. Friends have said, when we talk about those priority groups, we are not just talking about hospital services. In some cases, we are not even talking about hospital services.
One of our problems is that too many patients in each of those categories occupy hospital beds on a long-stay basis when they would be happier and more suitably cared for in small units at or near their own homes. That would enable redundant beds to be closed and resources released or other patients to be admitted to take advantage of the hospital services.
Recent discussions have been stirred up by the report of the development team on conditions in some hospitals for the mentally handicapped from 1976 to 1982. In considering what has been done to develop policy we are looking just as much at community services as we are to increased expenditure on the hospital service. To some extent, development of community services will steadily replace some of the unnecessary hospital care.
Reference has been made to the restraints which the present economic circumstances necessarily impose on local authority expenditure. They have been imposed on


expenditure on community care just as they have been imposed on the Health Service and the rest of social policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South said that some local authorities had experienced difficulties in developing community care to take patients away from the hospitals and to move in the direction that we all wish. Of course there are some restraints. At present the Government are looking to local government to reduce its expenditure and get within the limits that the economy can afford.
Before anybody examining this matter gets too carried away by arguments about the inability of local authorities to finance community services let me suggest that we keep this in proportion. It must be realised that the Government are now financing personal social services on a vast scale. Under the Conservative Government, expenditure on those services has increased. The Government's policy need not necessarily constrain desirable forms of spending on personal social services.
I shall deal with each of those points and explain what I mean. First, expenditure on the personal social services as provided by the local authorities costs a little under £2 billion and about 200,000 people are employed. During the Conservatives' first four years of office, the growth in expenditure on the social services in real terms has been about 9 per cent. I make allowance for all the usual conventions which apply to personal social service spending which tend to reduce the figures if we use a straight comparison with the retail price index. In each and every year bar one since we came to office there has been a real growth in expenditure by local authorities on the personal social services. That process seems to be continuing.
Some of the authorities which complain most bitterly about Government controls and restraints and claim that their social services are being cut to the bone are actually achieving incredible increases in expenditure in real terms. I shall refer to a few London boroughs which are fond of saying that their social service provision has been cut to the bone. During the last four years of Conservative Government, Brent has increased its spending on personal social services in real terms by 31·7 per cent., Hillingdon by 33·9 per cent. and Waltham Forest by 30·7 per cent. Those increases in real terms are unmatched elsewhere in the public sector and show that the restraints on local government have not bitten so hard on the personal social services as critics claim.

Mr. Foster: Is not the Minister taking credit in the social services, as his colleagues do in education, for increases in services that have come about only because local authorities have flouted the guidelines which the Government sought to impose on them? Had they adhered to the Government's guidelines there would have been severe reductions in the services.

Mr. Clarke: That is not so, because the restraints are imposed on the totality of expenditure by each local council. Within those restraints it is open to the council to choose its priorities and to obtain the best value for money from its spending and to concentrate on the desirable parts of its activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster asked about the possibility of conflict between the policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

Environment and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, but there is no such conflict of necessity in local government spending. The control is on the totality of local government expenditure because the Government expect local government to make its contribution to keeping down public spending. The authorities which complain loudest about what they describe as constraints on their spending in desirable areas often take themselves into penalties by increasing expenditure across the whole spectrum of services, including items such as bus revenue subsidies, sports and leisure and fringe activities of various kinds. If they concentrated on priority services and ensured that they obtained value for money there is no reason why the present system of local government spending controls should cause them to get into trouble when following sensible policies.
In this area, as in others, it is important to obtain value for money. We have spent a great deal of time in social policy concentrating on getting better value for money out of the Health Service and the social security system, as my hon. Friends have urged, but we have not always given the same attention to the ability of local government to obtain better value for the enormous sums that it spends on personal social services. We hope to assist local government to ensure that it does that.
In considering our response to the Barclay report, we have considered the future role of the social work service in the Department. We believe that there can be further development of the service's inspectorial role and, more important, of its ability to disseminate good practice among local authorities and to improve management techniques. We are at present consulting on new steps which we hope will generally help to improve the performance of local authority social service departments and get better value for the money spent.
Another key area touched on by my hon. Friends is the relationship between the Health Service and local authorities in caring for client groups, especially the elderly, and the help that the Government can give by developing joint financing and the policy set out in the document, "Care in the Community" produced a year or two ago. We have put a great deal of effort into developing that policy. It is extremely important that close co-operation is developed between health authorities and local government and that every encouragement and assistance is given to them to develop the community services required to move patients out of hospital and into more suitable community care.
There is an important role not only for the so-called statutory authorities—the health authorities and the local authorities—but for the voluntary sector. I entirely share the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster and for Suffolk, South about the need to recognise the distinctive contribution that that sector can make. Again, in the so-called HASSASSA Act last Session, provision was made for the voluntary sector to have representatives on joint consultative committees considering joint financing policy in the future. We are now consulting about how that should be done as a welcome step forward, as in the various parts of the country where the arrangements are working best there are three parties involved.
Our commitment to joint financing is shown not just by constantly urging authorities to co-operate in the steps that I have described, but by making increasing funds


available. In our first four years of office funds for joint financing were increased by 51 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1983–84. A sum of £96 million has been allocated for the purpose of joint finance in 1983–84. Last year we legislated and made other changes which gave increased flexibility to the rules on joint finance. They extended the period of taper in cases where the money was used for transferring patients out of hospital and gave authorities the ability to expend moneys for education and housing purposes as well as for health purposes.
In addition, we went along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South. Over and above joint finance, we also gave health authorities the ability, for the first time, to attach money to patients and to transfer funds with patients for as long as necessary in particular projects. It is now open to a health authority, where there is a "Care in the Community" type project which takes specific patients out of unnecessary long stay in hospital into a community-based project, to finance those patients in the community for as long as possible. We have put no limits on the amount of finance to be expended in that way, nor on the duration of the finance for a particular patient.
In the long run, that will turn out to be more important than the extra money for joint finance or a change in the rules. It is a completely new approach to policy, which I hope health authorities, local government and voluntary bodies will take advantage of when looking at the possibilities in their localities within the JCCs and elsewhere.
Social security was the subject on which both my hon. Friends made their maiden speeches. A sensible theme to be introduced is the efficiency by which we provide income support to those who need it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport for acknowledging that we had reduced the administrative costs of the system to some extent by the new arrangements for sickness pay and housing benefit. In reducing administrative costs in this area, we increase our ability to distribute income and to provide support for the groups that need it.
All my hon. Friends who spoke on this subject were thinking on broader horizons, and in one way or another all advocated variants on the tax credit scheme. I took particular notice of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent and for Stockport, who are obviously new recruits to the enthusiastic band on the Conservative Back Benches who support tax credits.
In my time on the Back Benches, before ministerial responsibility gave me extra wisdom and restraint, I was such a supporter, and I have always listened with close attention to everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who is the leading and acknowledged expert in this matter in the House. Most people who wish to get further into the subject have metaphorically sat at his feet at one time or another.
Although my hon. Friend gave clear expositions of his ideas on the subject, none of us should be deceived into thinking that the solutions to these problems will ever be administratively simple or are likely to be very cheap. He should not, therefore, lead us to the expectation that there is a rapid answer to these problems that could be instantly applied by a Government, however willing.
My hon. Friend often addresses himself to the question of cost. His arguments about how one should regard transfer payments, how one should regard them when considering the total level of public expenditure and how they should appear in the Government accounts, are matters that he should address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall make sure that his views are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
My hon. Friend spoke of the relationship of the tax system to our income support policies and explained what has been his theme for some years. In his opinion, the way properly to bring them together is to develop the principle of universality of benefits and get away from the overdependence of selective means-tested benefits which he believes has entered our system.
My hon. Friend acknowledged the Government's record on child benefit, which is the pre-eminent example of a non-tested benefit introduced originally as one step on the way to a full-blown tax credit system. It had its genesis in the tax credit Green Paper produced by the Conservative Government in th early 1970s. I remind my hon. Friend that, following my right hon. Friend's Budget earlier this year, child benefit now stands at a record level in real terms.
My hon. Friend said that we should now wind up the entire national insurance principle and change to his system. But one advantage of the national insurance system is that it brings home to today's wage earner the continuing cost of contributing to a system of income support for pensioners, the unemployed and so on. My hon. Friend touched on a basic income guarantee scheme, which appears to be the latest worked-up version of his ideas which he has prepared in conjunction with Mrs. Hermione Parker.
To illustrate my belief that my hon. Friend's answer to the problems is not administratively simple or necessarily cheap, I point out that he and his co-author accept that at 1981–82 prices the net cost of their scheme is estimated by them to be between £73 and £86 billion. They say that that should be raised by taxation and suggest an average tax rate of between 41 and 50·5 per cent.
I do not have time to go into great detail, but that shows the colossal scale of the change that my hon. Friend and his co-author contemplate. I do not criticise them for not having the details worked out in every particular, but it does not take long to discover that the effects on some taxpayers would be fairly startling. There would be gainers and losers. A large number of householders would be hard hit by those proposals. The indirect costs of introducing the scheme would be considerable. Although most people urging tax credit schemes say that they would reduce costs, it is not possible to ignore the transitional costs involved when the wage systems of all employers would require fundamental amendment, quite apart from the enormous costs of transforming the current systems of the Inland Revenue and the DHSS.
I do not say that simply to knock down all my hon. Friend's visionary ideas, which will obviously be added to by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent and for Stockport who have enthusiastically supported his proposals, but it is a difficult area and the practical snags are enormous. I assure my hon. Friends that as we continue with the social security policy and respond each year to the public spending pressures and the state of the economy and determine to what extent we can go beyond


our election pledges—we will undoubtedly maintain our pledges to pensioners and others—we will also keep sight of our long-term aims.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels strongly that we cannot simply proceed from one public spending round to the next and from one Budget to the next with a system which plainly cries out for a great deal of reform, simplification and greater efficiency. As we carry on with our policy and respond to the needs of the economy, we will have to keep sight of our long-term aims. That is obviously the message from my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington, for Mid-Kent and for Stockport.
All the new ideas came from the Conservative Benches this evening. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland came in at the end, as the last solitary contributor from the Labour party, to make a scholarly contribution which at one point accepted the constraints on resources and the almost inexorable growth in demand for social services of all kinds. He admitted that 35 years after the introduction of the national insurance system, many people still had to depend upon means-tested benefits and that the system had not realised its founders' objectives.
However eloquently the hon. Gentleman spoke, he produced no new ideas. That is always so of his party. He used the same old phrase, "sado monetarism" and made a routine speech which implied that the answer was to identify the needs, produce the money and pour it into a system which he accepted has many deficiencies. The Labour party had not found a new social policy after four years in Opposition. After it recovers from its present trauma it will have a long way to go, but is has another four years to produce something.
I recommend the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to go back to the drawing board. He can do no better than look at the various drawing boards which my hon. Friends consulted when composing their speeches this evening. The intelligent, constructive and creative contributions were made by my hon. Friends. The creative contribution which the Conservative party makes, coupled with the obvious care and compassion that my hon. Friends have for people who need the support of the social security system, provides the best hope for the future.

South Pacific (Atomic Explosions)

Mr. David Alton: Having listened to the Minister's concluding remarks in the last debate I was tempted to plunge into that minefield of credit tax, housing benefits, welfare, housing, pensions and the rest, but I should like to turn the attention of the House to another issue — the atomic explosions in the South Pacific in the 1950s and the effects that they had on service men and civilians who were in that region at the time.
I thank the Minister of State for coming here at 4.31 am to reply to the debate. I sympathise with him for having to be here at this time. He will accept that it is not the fault of right hon. and hon. Members who raise such important subjects that we organise ourselves in such a crazy way that debates have to take place at this time. I am sure that the Minister will put up with that and do his best to answer this important debate.
There has been growing, concern about the issue, in the last six months in particular. I shall draw attention to three main areas. First, I shall refer to the events which took place back in the 1950s in Maralinga and Christmas Island. Secondly, I shall talk about the survey which the Government said should be conducted. Thirdly, I shall talk about the compensation procedures which might be invoked if the survey concludes what many experts say that it might.
I became interested in the subject at the beginning of the year when The Sunday Times highlighted the case of a Royal Navy officer, Mr. Bill Grigsby. It recorded the claim by his widow, a Liverpool woman, that he had died in 1977 from the effects of an atom bomb test at Maralinga in South Australia.
One month before that, the BBC's Nationwide programme highlighted accounts of service men involved in the nine South Pacific tests between May 1957 and November 1958. The local base at that time was Christmas Island.
In answer to questions in the House the Prime Minister confirmed that
Approximately 12,000 British service men and 1,500 British civilians participated in the test programmes together with about 1,500 Australians."—[Official Report, 8 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 291.]
Nationwide, in a devastating programme, pointed to evidence which suggested that many of those 15,000 men and women who were present at the 21 British atmospheric tests held between 3 October 1952 and 23 September 1958 were exposed to the effects of radiation.
It is to that most serious of allegations that I want to bring the attention of the House this morning. Following the publication of The Sunday Times article, I made contact with Bill Grigsby's widow, who still lives on Merseyside. She told me that her husband's job had been to clear the Maralinga area of its aboriginal inhabitants before tests were conducted, and then to collect radioactive particles and to measure fall-out. She said that her husband had told her that he was never issued with any protective clothing and that on one occasion he came across a group of aboriginals, squatting around a small fire, in an atom bomb crater. They were covered in sores. Mrs. Grigsby is convinced that when her husband died from cancer in 1977 it was directly attributable to the effects of radiation.
The Australian Nuclear Veterans Association has traced 600 of the Australian ex-service men involved at Maralinga. Its findings are quite chilling. Of the 600, 114 have died—and, like Bill Grigsby, 109 have died of cancer.
Despite many such examples, on 8 February the Prime Minister said in a written answer that:
the records indicate that no one involved in the British nuclear tests in 1957 suffered exposure in excess of the internationally recognised limits at the time."—[Official Report, 8 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 291–92.]
That view is not shared by many service men and their relatives or by many eminent men and women. Writing in The Lancet on 9 April, three doctors at the Department of Social Medicine of the University of Birmingham said:
The follow-up of the South Pacific population is far from complete but already there is evidence of an abnormally high incidence of leukaemia and other RES … neoplasms.
In a supporting letter from another seven doctors which was also published in The Lancet, it is stated:
There is a strong indication that some of those involved had received radiation greatly in excess of a safe dose.
Bowing to the pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State for Defence announced in January that public disquiet necessitated the need for a survey. On 18 January I asked the Prime Minister whether she thought a survey was adequate. I said:
Does she not agree that simply making available service men's records is insufficient and that what is required is a public inquiry and an assurance that compensation will be given to the victims and their relatives?" — [Official Report, 18 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 166.]
In reply, the Prime Minister said that she believed that a survey of 15,000 personnel was the best way to go about the problem.
Since that reply it has become clearer how the survey is to be conducted, although many would still argue that its remit and its terms of reference are inappropriate. What has become less clear is the number of people who are to be surveyed and who is to be surveyed. In January, the Prime Minister said that it was to be 15,000 people, but in April, in the other place, Lord Glenarthur, in reply to Lord Jenkins of Putney, put the figure at 13,500. He said that this would be
To avoid statistical bias …"—[Official Report, House of Lords; 11 April 1983, Vol. 441, c. 92.]
Then on 14 July in answer to a written question from me, the Prime Minister said that
the survey will be higher than previously estimated, and could be around 20,000. These will include support personnel who worked in areas away from the test areas and others who were, at the time, not considered to be at any risk from radiation exposure."—[Official Report, 14 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 394.]
Surely that does exactly what Lord Glenarthur was at pains to prevent. It increases the figures to lessen the impact of any illness statistics. It builds in a statistical bias. The Minister should tell the House who are these additional 5,000 people. Have they been included so that the percentage of people appearing to have contracted cancer will be reduced? If not, why are these people now considered to have been at risk from radiation exposure when in January they were not considered to have been at risk? Otherwise, he will run the risk of being accused of cooking the books when the survey is published.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the report in The Observer last Sunday was correct. It stated that the

National Radiological Protection Board is to conduct the survey. If that is correct, perhaps the Minister will explain why the Prime Minister omitted that information in her reply on 14 July. She said:
A contract, to be funded by the Ministry of Defence, will be placed shortly for the detailed conduct of the survey by an independent organisation." — [Official Report, 14 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 394.]
Why was the name of the organisation withheld from the House just 11 days ago? Surely the truth is that there will be little confidence in the NRPB, because it is not wholly independent. The Ministry of Defence, in whose interests it is to disprove the findings of the university of Birmingham, is to be the paymaster for the survey. The Ministry already uses the services of the board, which will be open to the charge of being in the Ministry's pocket.
The Minister should tell the House how many cases involving suspected radiation effects on service men have been referred to the board for investigation in the past and how close existing links are between the NRPB and his Ministry. He should also say what other organisations were considered for the work and whether any thought was given to the independent financing of an academic body, say through the Medical Research Council.
In that way, the sceptics among us would have felt far more confident about the outcome of the survey. We would have trusted more in the impartiality of the survey and would have no cause for feeling, as many of us do, that the watchdog is being far too closely identified with the burglar.
The survey is to take an agonisingly long time. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that it could take up to three years for the survey to be completed. Does he know the view of Mr. Ken McGinley, the chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, who said at the weekend that the Ministry is using the survey as a delaying tactic to stop service men obtaining compensation? Mr. Tom Armstrong of the same organisation told me yesterday morning that he failed to see how it could take three years to establish whether there is a significantly higher level of cancer, leukemia and cataracts in test veterans than in the outside population.
What of the terms of reference of the survey? It will be simply a soul-cleansing charade unless full access to the medical histories of all those involved in the test is permitted, and all the findings should surely be made public. If the Ministry is prepared, as it says, to release service medical records to the doctor of any ex-service man who asks for them, why cannot information be extrapolated for the purpose of the survey as well?
Similarly, if the survey is to take no account of genetic effects, which is what we are told, how will we extend our sketchy knowledge of radiation damage? Most of what we know is based on the inadequate evidence gleaned after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some leading scientists, including Dr. Joseph Rotblatt, one of the world's leading radiation experts, believe that much of the evidence gleaned earlier is out of date. He says that there is no such thing as a safe threshold for radiation doses. What is required is a thorough and exhaustive investigation which takes new ideas into account.
Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what he hopes to learn from the survey and say how the findings will be presented. For example, will they be broken down into categories and age delineation? Will the instances of


cancer be broken down into those that are common to the whole population and those that are specifically radiation related?
If all that is not done, the Government's sincerity and motives will undoubtedly be questioned and the whole exercise will be rendered useless. As the joint committee on the medical effects of nuclear war said to me in a letter signed by Dr. Stewart Britten, that I received yesterday morning:
If the Government continues in its failure to disclose all the information available to it—or if it entrusts an investigation to a body which is not fully independent— it will only serve to bring discredit upon itself.
Regarding the conditions which applied at Christmas Island and Maralinga, does the Minister of State stand by the letter which he sent to his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) on 29 March of this year in which he said:
The Ministry of Defence believes that none of those present suffered any measurable effects to their health as the result of exposure to radiation at the tests.
He went on to say that the safety standards in force in the 1950s
were not markedly different from those used for radiological protection today. Also, the most stringent precautions were taken to ensure that the safety standards were observed.
If that was so, how does the Minister react to the accounts of servicemen who recall being blown 20 feet by the blast and who, having covered their eyes as instructed, could see the flash and the outline of the bones in their hands? Not only were the controls primitive, but in the case of tests at Christmas Island, where weapons were exploded over the water, the surface waters over a wide area must have become highly contaminated. The Ministry say that the nearest service men were 15 miles away, but that is hardly a great distance in terms of wind and water movement and fallout. That was not stringent control.
Similarly in the case of Warrant Officer William Jones, recorded in an Australian compensation claim; this is not just anecdote. It indicates an extraordinary absence of radiological control. Warrant Officer Jones died of cancer aged 39, 13 years after his involvement in the tests. He and his crew were in charge of a Centurion tank placed adjacent to ground zero. The intention was to see how well it survived in test blast heat and whether it could be started and driven off after exposure.
Following the explosion, the tank would not start, and while his crew went off to obtain parts, Warrant Officer Jones stayed with the tank for the next 48 hours. The cobalt in the tank's steel under nuclear bombardment became radioactive and Warrant Officer William Jones subsequently died of blood cancer. Was that stringent control? Is the Minister really saying that the safety conditions of 30 years ago should suffice today?
When the Minister replies, he will no doubt cite the New Zealand report on levels of radiation on Christmas Island. It would be useful if, at the same time, he would say why the British report, which was conducted into sites on the island in 1964 and which detailed the sites contaminated, has never been published. Surely it should now be made available in the House of Commons Library, if the Government have nothing to conceal.
The Minister might also like to make available to hon. Members the proceedings of the Congressional hearings now examining the claims of the American Atomic Veterans Association; the reports of Australian compensation cases; and the findings of the American inquiry in

1957 after the explosion known as "Smoky". None of those would give hon. Members cause to believe that safety regulations were either stringent or satisfactory.
I come to another highly unsatisfactory situation. There has been no denial by the Government of a damning indictment by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. The report was issued in June and said that the British authorities decided that 200 British and 62 Australian servicemen should experience the effects of an atomic blast at a closer range than normally allowed. The men were situated just five miles from the 20 kiloton bomb, which was about the same size as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Three days after the explosion, 100 of those participants were taken into the contaminated area and then, after tests, were decontaminated. The suggestion in the Australian report is that British service men were used as atom bomb guinea pigs, and that is profoundly disturbing. If true, the Government have a duty to make known the names of the military personnel who issued such inhumane and immoral orders. They will be failing in their duty to our service men if they do not.
Despite the Government's claim that there is no evidence that anyone has suffered ill-effects, a war service pension was awarded last year to a widow, Mrs. Marjorie Stephens, whose husband died of leukaemia 20 years after serving on Christmas Island. Yet Mrs. Grigsby of Liverpool, whose case I mentioned at the outset, has not succeeded in getting a war widow's pension. Her claim, along with others, was turned down by the Department of Health and Social Security. Perhaps the Minister will explain the different criteria that apply in the different cases. I hope that he will confirm that even if disease or death can be proved to have resulted from atomic test participation, there is still no guarantee of compensation under British law for service men or their relatives. Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 bars common law claims against the Crown by service men who sustain injury or disease that is attributable to their service. In the United States, about 1,200 civilians are claiming compensation following the Nevada case. The service men there, as in Britain, cannot sue. That is a matter that is currently before Congress. In Australia, however, service men are allowed to sue, and some have already done so successfully. Surely we should be amending our laws to enable our service men to take similar legal action. What point will the survey ultimately serve if redress is denied?
It may be suggested that the number of deaths caused by cancer in the population generally is no different from those among service men who are involved in the tests to which I have referred. For some time that was the misleading and complacent response of the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry is well aware that objective research has shown that the incidence of blood cancers specifically related to radiation has proved to be much higher among service men than is normal. The Birmingham university report calculated the number of blood cancers among identified service men to be two and a half times the normal incidence rate.
It would be obscene to be complacent. The experience in the South Pacific 30 years ago may be crucial to human safety in future. That is why it is so important that the Government show a sense of urgency in conducting a survey, why it is important that the survey is conducted by a truly independent and non-governmental body, why all


information that is gathered is made publicly available, why allegations that our service men were used for laboratory testing are answered, why safety measures are urgently reviewed and why suitable remedies through the courts are provided for families who have lost loved ones, or those who are still suffering the effects of leukaemia, early cataracts and skin eruptions caused by exposure to radiation or exposition to contamination from fall-out.
I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with all these important matters when he replies.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: A number of questions must be put to the Government. The first concerns safety measures, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has referred. In a report in The Observer on 9 January, certain claims were made about what one can only describe as suppression of information about safety measures. The report claims that
none of the key files about blast and radiation precautions have been released nor have Cabinet minutes about reports on the test programme.
One of the questions that we must ask the Minister is whether that statement is true. If the key files have not been released, why has that not happened, bearing in mind that the Ministry of Defence has recently said that there is no change in its total satisfaction with the safety measures at the time?
Because of the anxiety that is now being expressed, it would be better if all the information about the safety measures at the time were made fully available so that the House can judge whether the Ministry of Defence is right to be totally satisfied with them. The reason for that has emerged even more strongly as a result of the Congressional hearings in May relating to the papers of the late Colonel Stafford Warren which were released as evidence and about which questions were asked.
Having reviewed that evidence, Dr. Alice Stewart of Birmingham university, whose research has promoted interest in the issue, claimed that the new American evidence accorded more with the veterans' account of safety arrangements than with the official versions. If there is a possibility, as many veterans suggested, that the safety measures were not adequate and not properly enforced and that nuclear waste disposal was treated casually, we need to know and to ensure that safety measures are improved.
What changes have been made to the safety measures in handling radioactive materials? Has change been necessary? Is there room for improvement, or is the Ministry of Defence entirely satisfied with measures that were thought suitable on what seems to have been inadequate information 30 years ago?
It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on the claim in The Observer article, to which I referred, that the American Government were secretive about all aspects of the atomic bomb programme and refused to share information about blast and radiation effects. If that is so, it is possible that our safety measures were inadequate, because British researchers did not have adequate information. Is that so? If it is, what improvements have been made in the light of knowledge that must have been gained in the past 30 years?
Will the survey last two or three years, and how is it to be conducted? In a letter to The Lancet on 9 April 1983,

a group of doctors from several hospitals, including St. Mary's and the Welsh national school of medicine, outlined the form that the survey should take. They wrote:
The servicemen present at the nuclear test explosions constitute a uniquely large sample of healthy young men who were at risk of exposure to ionising radiation and among whom there now appears to be evidence of radiation related effects. To examine as fully as possible their subsequent medical histories, access to a complete nominal roll of the total group of exposed persons is required, together with full disclosure of what is known about radiation exposure of the men on duty during these tests. We urge that an independent academic body be asked to conduct a full investigation into the morbidity, mortality, and perhaps genetic effects in these men, and given the means to do so.
Why is the Minister not suggesting that the personal medical records of those service men be made available, with their permission?
In a written answer on 10 March 1983, the Minister said that the central records accessible to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys would give sufficient information, and that examination of the individual medical case histories would be of little or no assistance in achieving that aim and would add considerably to the length of time that the survey would take. I do not think that that is true, provided that sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced people look through the medical records.
Why does the Minister want to exclude those case histories? Surely one needs as full knowledge as possible of the medical history of the service men involved to judge whether any subsequent cancer has been caused by the effects of radiation. After all, it would appear that the two rather special types of cancer—leukaemia and cataracts —are more common among the service men involved in the tests in the 1950s than among the population as a whole. To get to the truth of the matter, one would surely need to know a great deal about their medical history. I do not think that a statistical survey would be sufficient. One would need to see whether there was any other reason for suffering from those forms of cancer, apart from the effects of radiation. There might possibly be other reasons for it, but it would be as well to know the truth one way or another.
It can only be to the Government's advantage to carry out a complete survey of what occurred then, partly to clear up any suspicions and partly to extend our knowledge of the effects of atomic warfare. The Minister will know full well that claims and counterclaims are made about the medical effects of nuclear warfare. Why not use this opportunity to make public as much hard information as possible? Surely the truth is the Government's best weapon. Every effort should be made to discover it.
I support the points made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill about the need for compensation. If we find that people have been protected inadequately from the effects of radiation during their service to this country and have suffered not only illness and early death but painful and unnecessary illness, surely either they or their families should be compensated. That is a matter of justice and fairness. I urge that point on the Minister and hope that he will tell us what arrangements he will make for compensation if we find that service men have suffered unnecessarily from the conduct of those tests.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising this important matter. I fully accept that it is hardly his fault that the debate has


come on at this rather unusual hour. I assure him, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and anyone reading the report of the debate that the Government take this issue extremely seriously and are determined to press on with the survey as a matter of urgency.
I remind the House that it is very important not to jump to the conclusions to which individuals who claim to have been affected would wish one to jump. We have considerable sympathy for them, but we must start from the incontrovertible observation that cancer is a major cause of death for a particular age group of the British population. Those who were involved in the tests that we are discussing tonight are now in that age group, and it does not necessarily follow that any deaths that may ensue now are directly related to the tests 25 years ago.
This debate reflects understandable concerns expressed previously in the House and in the media that the atomic test programme conducted in the South Pacific in 1957 and 1958 has bequeathed a legacy of illness to those who participated. The concerns are understandable because widespread publicity has been given to the carcogenic effects of radiation and because cancer is a common cause of death. However, in the special circumstances, there is as yet no evidence to justify the linking of those two facts. It is 25 years since we carried out atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific, and the men who took part are now reaching ages where an increase in the incidence of cancers through natural causes must be expected. It is entirely natural for those men who contract cancer to question whether there could be a causal relationship with their earlier work in connection with atom tests. This possibility has been debated in the media on the basis of information collected from a relatively few, mostly non-typical, cases and, on the basis of those extremely limited data, attempts have been made to show that a causal link exists. I have examined all the claims that have been made so far and none has stood up to critical review.
When I first started to examine the questions about the possible health risks from our nuclear test programme, I was pleased to find how much attention had been given at the time to the details of nuclear safety. In the climate of the 1950s, when nuclear safety was not the issue that it is today, I might have expected safety standards to be somewhat relaxed. The evidence is quite the reverse, which may be at least partially due to the fact that many of those responsible for the nuclear safety of our tests had been brought up in the safety schools for conventional high explosives. The bases for high explosives safety had been skilfully adapted to the new situation and had been applied with the same thoroughness. The nuclear safety standards and procedures were drawn up and implemented with commendable thoroughness and bear favourable comparison with those in force today. The importance that was attached to nuclear safety is reflected in the recorded details of the events at that time.
I made it clear previously to the House that the safety arrangements for the tests required that an individual who might be exposed to radiation was issued with a dosimeter to record the actual exposure experienced. Those dosimeters, which were normally of the film-badge type, were read after each possible radiation exposure and the results recorded. The records have been retained in our archives, and they provide objective evidence that the exposure limits set before the tests were in practice respected. There were three such exposure limits. The lowest, which applied to an overwhelming proportion of

those who were at any potential risk of a radiation exposure, was set at 3rem; the middle level for a small group undertaking special tasks essential to the success of the operations was set at 10rem; and for a very small group, primarily those aircrew personnel required to collect debris from the mushroom cloud, a level was set at 25rem. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question on 8 February 1983, at c. 292 of Hansard, the upper level was exceeded only twice when two service men were exposed to 30 rem. Applying today's radiological protection standards to events which occurred 25 years ago, the considered scientific judgment is that the radiation exposures measured during the south Pacific tests should not result in significant adverse health effects for the men who took part.
Questions have been raised, frequently on the basis of hearsay evidence, about men who were not monitored for radiation exposure because, as I explained, they were assessed at the time to be at no risk of such exposure. The cases that I have examined do not substantiate the claim that the assessments made at the time of the tests were in error. All the Pacific tests were carried out in accordance with programme plans, no tests gave a significantly enhanced nuclear yield, and no test was carried out at a place or time significantly different from expectation. In short, the test programme was carried out as planned, hence the radiation exposure assessments were not invalidated by any deviations in the test conditions.
In all, there were nine tests in the South Pacific—four in 1957 and five in 1958. There was seven air drops of devices with yields in the megaton range, and two tower shots in the kiloton range. No shot generated significant local fall-out. The Pacific tests were conducted in accordance with "Radiological Safety Regulations Christmas Islands" a publication issued by the director of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and enforced by the commander of the task force. The safety regulations were consistent with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the advice of the Medical Research Council.
At shot time, all personnel were withdrawn from the area surrounding ground zero to a distance which ensured that they were not exposed to a significant level of prompt radiation from the explosion. Men were mustered out of the area. The test did not take place until it was positively established that the area had been completely evacuated. Prompt radiation consists of neutron and gamma rays. The attenuation of these rays by the atmosphere is well-established and, beyond a certain distance, the attenuation is heavy. Consequently, the definition of safe areas is highly reliable.
There was no significant local fall-out, so that the only other possible sources of radiation risk were the device itself while it was being prepared, materials of the environment which were activated by the prompt radiation and equipment which was contaminated by activation or debris.
Environmental activation for the South Pacific tests was minimal, even for the balloon shots, but post-shot entry into the area surrounding ground zero for the balloon events was strictly controlled by the health phycisists. All persons authorised to enter the area were monitored for radiation exposure, as were all those working on the assembly of the device and on decontaminating equipment. A special group consisted of aircrew who were


required to fly into the debris cloud to collect samples for analysis. The sampling aircraft were specially modified for this function, the aircrew were supplied with the best possible protective equipment and, of course, they were radiation monitored. On return from a sampling mission the aircraft was decontaminated in an area set aside for this purpose.
The general limit on radiation exposure was set at 3rem, but for special activities essential to the success of the tests, higher limits were set at 10 and 25rem. Of all the men monitored, the radiation exposure of the vast majority was well below 3rem, most often not measurable above background. About 50 exposures were experienced in the range 3 to 10rem and less than 20 in the range of 10 to 25rem. Two aircrew were exposed to 30rem. Strictly speaking, radiation exposures should be expressed in Rontgen, but it is common practice to refer to rems. A rem is a measure of radiation dose and is now an obsolescent unit being replaced by the sievert. There are 100rem in 1 sievert.
The current recommendation for the maximum annual radiation dose for a worker certified to work with radiation—a classified radiation worker—is 5 rem or 50 millisievert, so that over a 40-year lifetime a classified radiation worker could accumulate a total dose of 200 rem. It is normal to make the conservative assumption that the health risk and the total exposure are linearly related, and that the risk of death each year for a radiation worker receiving annually the maximum radiation dose due to his occupation is about 1 in 1,000.
The average annual dose for a radiation worker is about one tenth of the recommended limit. On that basis, the death risk per year for the most exposed test personnel—30 rem or 0·3 sievert equivalent to about 8 millisievert per year for 40 years—is about one in 10,000. For those test personnel for whom the lowest radiation level applied —3 rem—the risk would be less by a factor of 10—one in 100,000. Those figures suggest that there is little likelihood of finding an enhanced death rate among the test personnel, but we will press on to see whether that is the case.
There have been allegations that some men failed to observe the safety regulations and hence were exposed to radiation hazards. While it is impossible to guarantee that there were no such occurrences, the records of the activities in the test area do not support those allegations. I am assured that a positive effort was made to monitor the observance of the safety procedures and that had there been any significant non-compliance with them, that fact would have been observed by those responsible for implementing the safety regulations.
While I am confident that the safeguards taken at the time were completely adequate, and hence that the test personnel were not subjected to any significant health hazard, I can only prove this to be the case on the basis of what has actually happened to the men in the 25 years since our atmospheric nuclear test programme ended. In view of the anxiety being expressed, I therefore announced in January this year that we needed up-to-date reliable information which would show one way or the other whether there was a problem. On 12 January 1983 the Ministry of Defence announced the intention to conduct a survey of the medical histories of both British service personnel and civilians who had taken part in the 1950s

nuclear test programmes. This survey will be conducted on the basis of records already available to the Government and the prime objective will be to compare the experiences of test personnel with those of a similar group of service men and civilians who did not participate in the test programmes. The survey will, as already stated, be undertaken by an independent agency and it is intended to publish the results.
Before the Ministry of Defence can make arrangements for an independent agency to start work, it is necessary to define the populations which need to be considered in the survey and to identify the individuals within those populations in sufficient detail for their records to be traced. That is proving to be a major task. The investigations to date show that there are about 20,000 test personnel to be considered for the tests and other nuclear programmes carried out in Australia and the South Pacific. We have to ensure that we take account of everyone who might possibly have been at some risk, but avoid including those who were clearly at no risk; otherwise, the true test population would be diluted, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, and the statistical comparisons with the non-test population would be biased. In addition to defining and identifying the test populations, we also have to construct statistically valid control populations so that effective comparisons can be made.
As I think the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is aware, the latest estimate of the number of personnel to be considered in the survey is about 20,000. That is an increase on the number given by the Prime Minister in February this year, when she referred to about 12,000 service men and 1,500 civilians.
There is plainly no change in the number of 4,000 men who were radiation monitored. They are well recorded. The uncertainty lies with those who were assessed at the time not to be at any radiation risk and therefore did not figure in the lists maintained by the radiological protection authorities. For the Pacific tests our best estimate of the number to be considered is about 12,000. The remaining 8,000 are associated with the Australian tests and other operations like the Maralinga experimental programme and the clean-up operations at Maralinga and Christmas Island.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want, as I do, to ensure that the statistical base is correct. However, we face a dilemma. We do not want to exclude anyone, but if we trawl too deeply we will, as I said earlier, dilute the sample and therefore put the results at risk.
I assure the House that the survey will be carried out entirely without bias. Its purpose is to confirm or deny the validity of the assessment that we now make, on the basis of our knowledge of the safety precautions and of the radiation monitoring records, that the test personnel were not exposed to any significant health hazard. However, I must make it plain that the survey will not—and indeed cannot—provide direct evidence about individual cases. There is no way of determining whether a cancer contracted by an individual has been introduced by so-called natural causes or by an occupational exposure to radiation. At best it is possible only to allocate relative probabilities to the two possibilities. The survey will assist in calculating these probabilities.
A survey on the scale needed to produce valid results is, as I know the hon. Gentleman accepts, a major undertaking and it will inevitably take time to complete.


Our present estimate is that results are unlikely to become available in less than about two years, but we are proceeding with urgency.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two of the questions that I put to him earlier? First, will the independent body to be responsible for the survey be the National Radiological Protection Board? Secondly, as suggested in The Observer on Sunday, what about the allegation made in Australia in a report published by the Australian Government that British service men were deliberately exposed, almost as human guinea pigs, to higher levels of radiation than had originally been determined?

Mr. Pattie: I am not yet in a position to announce the identity of the body that will carry out the survey, but we shall want to do that fairly quickly. I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but the debate has been helpful in focusing the attention not only of myself but of my Department on what he has said. I shall examine the matter and, if I may, write to him, which is probably the best way to proceed.
The Government will continue to deal with claims that are made about possible adverse health consequences from participation in the nuclear test programmes, in accordance with the procedures that have already been described to the House.

Greenham Common

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in a debate a matter that is confusing and angering many of my constituents, and has confused and angered them for many months—that is, why the Government, in the shape of the Department of Transport, are providing the site for those women who describe themselves as "peace women" and who first came to Greenham common in 1981. They came to stage a protest against the deployment of cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common, although that deployment had been agreed by NATO and accepted by Her Majesty's Government in 1980.
In a statement to the House, the then Secretary of State for Defence said that Greenham common would be "the main operating base" for the cruise missiles in the United Kingdom and would:
house six flights of cruise missiles … It is planned that the first units will deploy at Greenham Common in 1983.
The factors affecting the decision stemmed from the prime operational need to bring the first missiles into service as soon as possible. The choice had therefore to concentrate on establishments already in defence occupation which had sufficient space available and as many as possible of the basic facilities, in particular, adequate accommodation, road communications, and access to training areas and suitable dispersal areas … it will be necessary from time to time to practise the deployment of the launcher and its support vehicles to dispersed sites away from the base. These exercises will be along preplanned routes and will take place after consultation with the local authorities concerned.
No live missiles, or warheads, will be carried on exercises at any time … As part of the security arrangements we shall be contributing 220 British personnel towards the guard forces for the bases and dispersal deployments …
I am notifying the local authorities concerned about the deployment, and their views on the environmental and social aspects of the arrival of the units"—
Cruise missiles—
will be taken into account to the fullest possible extent." —[Official Report, 17 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1342–43.]
I wish to consider to what extent the then Secretary of State's statements have been implemented as they relate to the responsibilities of the Department of Transport. He spoke of road communications and of considering the views of the local authority on the environmental and social aspects of the coming of cruise missiles.
First, I wish to deal with the arrival of the women in 1981. When they arrived they pitched their tents on Greenham common in flagrant disregard of the byelaws administered by Newbury district council on behalf of all those who wish to enjoy the amenities of the common. Initially, they chose for their site land outside the main gates of the base and to one side of the access road. There they made their camp and proclaimed themselves pledged to resist the deployment of cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common. They have been there ever since. They now rejoice in the name of the Greenham peace women with their residence the Greenham peace camp. From what we know of their views, they are opposed to the nuclear defence policy of NATO, opposed to the Government's nuclear defence policy and strongly biased against the presence of American bases in the United Kingdom. Judging from the propaganda that I have seen, they seem to believe that the Americans, our allies, are the most likely aggressors in any east-west struggle.
I make no criticism of these women's absolute right to hold those views. How could I, when I believe in and wish to cherish our free society in which we can all say what we think? I am as surprised as my constituents, however, that this group of women—self-appointed and enjoying no calculable public support except a handful of votes for their candidate in the general election and the presence of 30,000 women at a demonstration in December, a figure not remotely equalled in their latest demonstrations —should be allowed to maintain a physical presence at the gates of RAF Greenham common by courtesy of the Department of Transport.
When the women first came to Greenham common in 1981 they lived in tents. With the onset of winter, they brought in caravans which were positioned on either side of the access road, some on the common land and some on land owned by the Department of Transport. There they remained until September 1982 when the Department of Transport, following action taken by Newbury district council in respect of the council's side of the access road, evicted the seven caravans belonging to the women. The Department then covered the site, including both sides of the access road, with loads of stones and boulders. To quote a recent parliamentary answer to me, this was
to prevent reoccupation by vehicles. Soil was later added as a first step towards eventual planting of the mounds."—[Official Report, 1 July 1983; Vol. 44, c. 174.]
So far as I know, that was the last action taken by the Department of Transport on its site.
On either side of the access road to the main entrance to the base there are large mounds of gravel and soil in which a few weeds and scrub plants manage to survive and on which the so-called peace camp now resides. The eating or communal area is on the common land administered by Newbury district and the sleeping quarters —20 to 25 unsightly bivouacs covered with polythene sheeting—on part of the 66,698 sq m of land that the Department of Transport acquired between June 1951 and October 1952. Despite the ministerial hope that the site would not be reoccupied by vehicles, there is a van converted into a caravan on the Department of Transport site.
The area in and around the site on either side of the access road is littered with rubbish, rags of old carpet, parts of a broken fence and bags of refuse. When I drove past yesterday morning there was a wooden scaffold on which had been pinned a notice saying that some Danish women had come to the camp. The whole site is ugly, an environmental eyesore and blatantly against the district council regulations.
Yet the women seem to think that they have a preemptive right to be there. When I looked around the site some weeks ago I was told by one of them to get off the site, as though she owned the common. She advised me not to walk on to another part of the common because that was where the lavatories were. She spoke as though I were trespassing on private land rather than acknowledging that she was breaking the law by having the camp on the site.
Newbury district council has evicted the women on several occasions, most recently last May when it sought and obtained from the High Court an order for possession and injunctions against the women then in the tents on the common. On that occasion, the evicted women simply

crossed the access road and took up residence on the site belonging to the Department of Transport, and there they have remained ever since.
As each High Court order to evict the women costs about £3,000 of ratepayers' money, it is not difficult to understand why the district council now wonders whether it is justified in spending any more to get rid of the women if they are to be given a safe haven on Department of Transport land. The chairman of the council's recreation and amenities committee, Councillor Cyril Woodard, recently wrote to me as follows:
The Council is disappointed by the attitude of the Department of Transport and is dissatisfied with the apparent lack of concern for what it considers to be an infringement of the law … I would hope that this letter … clearly demonstrates the feeling of frustration which members and officers of the Council have about the lack of co-operation on the part of the Department of Transport during the past few months … I would stress that a much firmer and clearer indication of the Government's intention in dealing with this outbreak of lawlessness is essential if a satisfactory conclusion to the problem is to be reached.
I concur absolutely with those statements. Indeed, I go further. If the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House in 1980 that he would seek the views of the local authority — Newbury district council — about environmental aspects of the coming of cruise missiles, how can the Department of Transport now ignore the council's views even to the extent of not replying to letters about the site? How can it leave the site as an ugly, weed-grown gravel mound dotted with polythene shanties and claim that it cares at all about Greenham common as common land? I stress that I am talking about the land not just as an air base but as English common land. Finally, how can the Department justify its ownership of the site when the present access road leaves so much to be desired, especially in terms of the amount of traffic that uses and will continue to use it, probably in increasing numbers, as the build-up of the base accelerates?
Locally, the so-called peace women, with their ultra-feminist views, their lack of concern for local people, their high-handedness and their public behaviour, have lost any support or respect that they ever enjoyed. From the result of the general election, it is clear that their national support is on the wane. They have become an unmitigated and expensive nuisance, and we want them to go. What is more, their demonstrations, although poorly supported, tie down police manpower.
The Thames Valley chief constable told me only at the weekend that of £3½ million budgeted for police overtime in Thames Valley for the year ending 31 March 1984, £2 million has already been spent, although two thirds of the year is still to go. Where the additional finance is to come from is not clear, but I know that the presence of these women on Department of Transport land at the entrance to the base means that they can mount incidents against the base at will, like the disgraceful and irresponsible break-in last night when they daubed two American military aircraft with paint.
Not only does that show how willing these people are to take matters into their own hands, but it again raises the whole question of security at Greenham. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, but it must exercise the minds of everyone in the House of Commons as this is such an important base.
It is difficult for me, as it is for Newbury district council and my constituents, to understand why these women, whose anti-social behaviour has made them so unpopular


locally and whose political gestures are so expensive, should now be afforded the sanctuary of Department of Transport land wherewith to flout the wishes of the local authority although it was denied them in 1982.
Thus tonight I ask the Minister to give me a clear-cut assurance that the women will be evicted without delay, as they have been in the past. I ask her to fulfil the promises made by the Secretary of State for Defence that the local authority will be consulted about environmental matters, in particular about restoring the common land around the main entrance to its natural beauty.
I also ask my hon. Friend to look at the access road to see whether she does not agree that it could and should be improved for the sake of better road communications and in the interests of safety.
As a footnote, I should perhaps add that if my hon. Friend feels that I would leave the women homeless, I assure her that they have a house in a village close to Greenham common and I can see no possible reason why they should not vacate Greenham common and move to that house as permanent residents.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has spoken with some feeling about conditions in his constituency, but he has ranged over wider topics that cannot be avoided when discussing Greenham common and the women's protest movement. It is a matter of judgment and opinion as to how much support there is in the country for the objectives of these women, and I do not accept his view that the majority of our people are in favour of cruise missiles. However, I do not intend to discuss the defence aspect tonight as it is outside the remit of the debate.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that the women of Greenham common are symbolic of the opposition to cruise missiles in particular and to nuclear weapons in general. I do not think that one particular group of women has been there every day since the protest began, but what we now call the women of Greenham common have inspired people throughout the world who have never seen the common or the airbase or taken part in any of the activities.
The women of Greenham common have a wider and even greater symbolism that goes far beyond the specific aim of being opposed to cruise missiles. Their activities symbolise the richness and diversity of our democratic way of life. Some people may feel uncomfortable by their protest. Others may find it difficult to understand. Many cannot come to terms with the way of life or the dedication of those women, but the strength of our democracy is that peaceful and lawful, although perhaps unorthodox, demonstrations should not only be tolerated but encouraged.
There was a hint in the hon. Gentleman's speech that only in Britain could such events take place on Government land. Some say with justification that only in Britain does such tolerance exist. I am very much aware of the harassment. No one can say that the women of Greenham common have been left to their own devices to do as they wish. The hon. Gentleman drew attention not only to the evictions by the MOD and the Department of Transport, but to the various activities of the Newbury district council.
A society that ruthlessly tries to crush and imprison protesters and seeks to silence the voice of reason and

dissent is the poorer for that. I find it incongruous that those who oppose the aims of the Greenham common women should point to the defects of the totalitarian societies with a great deal of fervour while looking at those defects with envy. I do not say that of the hon. Gentleman, but some people point to how dissenters are dealt with in a totalitarian society while suggesting that we are relaxed in our dealing with protesters.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituents find the protest uncomfortable to live with. When large numbers of people go to the air base, they are extremely difficult to cater for.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The local people object, not to the protest but to the way that the women behave in the town of Newbury.

Mr. Hughes: Two things make the hon. Gentleman's constituents uncomfortable. One is the descent of large numbers of people on the air base at various times. It is difficult to take care of them. I understand why the hon. Gentleman's constituents find that upsetting. I understand that the villagers find the activities of the women uncomfortable, but there are ways to deal with them. Perhaps the Newbury district council should accept: the peace women, as they will be there for some time, and perhaps help to make their conditions more tolerable.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Why should they be there for a long time?

Mr. Hughes: They will be there for some time, whether we like it or not. They are engaging in a peaceful protest.
The hon. Gentleman said that the land on which the women are living belongs to the Department of Transport, but most protests in this country could take place on other than publicly owned land. I accept that some protests take place on private land, but, by and large, the general activities of the protest movements take place on publicly-owned land.
The fact that the land is owned by the Department of Transport is not of any great significance in itself. The Department of Transport, which is not an individual entity, holds land in trust for the nation, not for its own purposes. The Department should remember that part of our heritage is that protest should survive, or even thrive.
If the human race is to survive the awful perils of a nuclear war—I am optimistic enough to believe that it will — the women of Greenham common will have played their part. We should be proud that we are willing to allow such protests to take place and that we have something to offer the world. If the Under-Secretary of State resists the temptation put before her by the hon. Member for Newbury to evict the women, she, too, will have played her part in seeing that not only progress but we survive.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) chose the Greenham Common women's peace camp as his topic, because it is causing a great deal of concern to the people of Newbury, Berkshire and southwards in north-west Hampshire, an area represented by my colleague the other Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
The issues raised by the presence of these ladies on Department of Transport and Newbury district council land outside the gates of RAF Greenham common present a difficult problem. The question is how to balance the rights of the people in the local and wider communities who think that their environment is polluted by the protesters, and the rights of citizens who wish to effect a change in an element of Government policy which offends them deeply.
The camp set up to protest against the deployment of cruise missiles is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My concern in this debate can extend only to the women's occupancy of certain highways land for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible. For the purpose of anyone reading this debate, I add that my right hon. Friend and I are firmly and unquestionably committed to multilateral disarmament. For that we shall fight and fight again.
That is why I found the comments by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) preposterous. I have never used that word to describe the hon. Gentleman before, but he suggested that Newbury district council should assist the Greenham Common women's peace camp. The hon. Gentleman has lost his sense of proportion.
I shall briefly outline the camp's history. In August 1981 the protest began with the setting up of a camp comprising a number of women and children in seven caravans on common land owned by Newbury district council immediately adjacent to the main entrance to the air base.
In May 1982, following an eviction order by Newbury district council, they moved their camp on to the verge of the A339 trunk road, which borders the common land. The Department of Transport could not allow the caravans to remain because they obstructed the site line from the air base access road to the trunk road. Since we were unable to persuade the women to move, I gave instructions, in the interests of road safety, to take action to remove the caravans. That was done in September 1982. To prevent the women from moving the caravans back to the highway verge, I arranged for stones and soil to be deposited there. The caravans have not returned.
I note my hon. Friend's statement that a van which has been converted to a caravan has appeared. That must have happened since he and I visited the site of the camp about three weeks ago. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall investigate the van and ascertain whether it is on Newbury district council or Department of Transport land.
As my hon. Friend said, the women came back. They are now camped in crude, plastic-covered shelters mainly on highway land to either side of the air base access road on the north side of the trunk road. During the first week of July they staged a week of protest by attempting to block access to and from the base and to gain entry to it. The House may recall that it was felt necessary to reinforce the airfield security by drafting in 600 men of the 1st battalion, Queen's Own Highlanders. They are doing a good job in support of the camp security police. In all, 139 women were arrested and variously charged with obstruction and criminal damage. For the moment the women are continuing their peaceful protest and all seems quiet — but, for all that, none the less infuriating and annoying to my hon. Friend's constituents.
As the highway authority for the trunk road, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has powers under the Highways Act 1980 to remove structures from the highway or things deposited on the highway that constitute a nuisance or a danger, that is, a nuisance or a danger in highway terms. We have been loth to use these powers, partly because it is everyone's right in a free and civilised society, such as we all enjoy in this country, to make peaceful protests against anything that gives people cause for concern, and partly because the women have not and do not constitute either a danger to road safety or, except when they sit down in the road, a disruption to traffic. When they do cause disruption the police act swiftly.
In those circumstances, it would be a misuse of highway powers to secure the removal of these women for other than a highway purpose. This is why we have been reluctant to take more positive action to move the women on, particularly when such action would not only encourage confrontation and publicity but would play into the hands of the protesters, who hunger for news media coverage, which they have not been getting in the same measure of late, as my hon. Friend intimated. In any case, they would in all likelihood simply move back on to the common land and all we would have done was to shift the problem back on to the Newbury district council.
I heard my hon. Friend say there had been a lack of response by my Department to letters from the Newbury district council, exercising its view, quite rightly, that action to protect the local people should be taken. I shall look into that lack of response to letters, but I am aware that none are outstanding from my office to my hon. Friend and I shall find out what has been going on. There is no need for it and responses should be sent.
The camp has been there for a long while. It lacks basic services and amenities. I have verified for myself what an eyesore it is. It offends against the normal standards of Air Force establishments. It spoils some pleasant common land and is a potential, if not an actual, environmental health hazard. Furthermore, it is causing mounting frustration among local people in Newbury, who find both the camp and its occupants a perpetual irritant on the outskirts of the town.
The message coming across to us at the Department of Transport is that local residents have had more than enough. They have been patient — very patient — but they now feel that it is time for the authorities to act and rid them of the nuisance. I understand that there have been one or two attempts to discourage the women's continued presence. Those have not succeeded with a determined group of women. Another factor that we must consider is the high cost to the police, the local authority and central Government since the camp was first formed. The worst difficulties have occurred when the small number of actual campers are joined by much larger groups for so-called days or weeks of action.
I am under no illusion about the fact that the cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer in seeking to allow this protest to continue within reasonable limits has been, and for the moment continues to be, considerable. The question asked quite reasonably is, "How long are we prepared to tolerate the trespass of these women on highway land?" They are also on Newbury district council land that lies between the Department of Transport land and the perimeter of the RAF camp.
The Department could take action in the courts to evict the women and repossess the land. However, that would take a long time and, in highway terms, legal action might not succeed and proceedings would certainly be turned into a media circus, probably causing worse local disruption for a time. Whatever action is to be taken by whichever Government Department or local district council, it must be sure to succeed.
There is one new highway matter that I should mention. It has been clear to the Department and the airbase authorities for some time that the junction of the access road and the A339 needs improvement. The volume of traffic on the road and into the airbase has increased notably and will increase further over coming months as the number of personnel at the base increases.
No improvement scheme has yet been designed and I cannot say how much of the verge on which the women are camping may be needed, but my concerns must be the access from the A339 to the base and the need for road safety. Therefore, any land needed for the highway work will have to be cleared when the improvement is made. I am asking for a further investigation of what improvements can be made and within what time scale. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep him in touch with those developments, which may be a successful way of resolving not only his problem, but the problem of road safety which is beginning to arise on the site.
I understand that my hon. Friend would have liked me to say tonight that I shall issue instructions forthwith to proceed to legal action. I know his views, from our visit to the site on 8 July, and the strong views of the people of Newbury and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell).
The debate has re-emphasised the strength of local feeling. I have explained my Department's position on the occupation of highway land. Obviously my Department is in close contact with the Ministry of Defence about the wider issues arising from the problem I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is keeping a close watch on the situation. If circumstances changed, he would reconsider the matter carefully.
My hon. Friend need have no doubt that as soon as there is a sensible opportunity to improve road safety at the entrance to the base, I shall take the action open to me that will help his constituents and those in the general area.
In reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I should say that wherever protest takes place it is likely to be on publicly owned land. That is a problem which we have to face. Every hon. Member would defend to the last the right to peaceful protest, but such protest will be effective only if it does not irritate, annoy or provoke the people in the surrounding area.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the difference between the Greenham Common demonstration and almost any other protest that one could think of the fact that protesters have decided to build an establishment on common land? Most other protests last for 24 or 48 hours, after which the people depart. The women at Greenham Common have taken up residence on land that is not theirs and have turned the demonstration into something different from anything that we have seen before.

Mrs. Chalker: I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend. It is a more long-standing protest than we have seen in other places. The presence of those people, wherever they may be on public land, will never be successful if it causes the amount of disruption that is occurring in that area. A permanent solution must be found to the problem. If these ladies wish to continue their protest, they must find a more acceptable way of doing so.
I think that my hon. Friend had the answer when he referred to a house that had been acquired by the ladies. They should return to those premises and conduct their peaceful protest from there. While that would not solve the problem, it would at least allow the protesters to live a little more peaceably alongside the residents of Newbury, who are being inconvenienced and whose rightful wish to enjoy the common land is being severely restricted.
Although my powers are somewhat limited and can be exercised only in respect of road safety and safety matters, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the councillors told me on our visit to Newbury and all that my hon. Friend has said in representing the views of his constituents. He need have no fear, because I have taken on board all that he said and will see what can be done in the interests of road safety to resolve the problem.

Sri Lanka

Mr. Dave Nellist: Since submitting this subject for the ballot on 20 July, just a few days ago, the position in Sri Lanka has worsened dramatically for the workers and peasants there. In the early edition of The Times today appears a report from Reuter's correspondent in Colombo which begins:
The Sri Lankan Government imposed a 15-hour curfew on Colombo and several other parts of the country yesterday … Witnesses said shops and houses belonging to minority Tamils were the targets of attacks. A pall of black smoke hung over Colombo as several shops went up in flames.
According to the UPI correspondent — who, with Reuter's correspondent, seems to be the only source of news, and that heavily censored, coming out of Colombo —black clouds of smoke could be seen miles from the centre of the city.
Over the weekend we heard of the killing of 13 soldiers outside Jaffna. Owing to censorhsip, it is not clear what happened, but reports reaching London speak of between 15 and 50 people being killed by troops who got out of control. Given the security forces' previous record, vandalism, and the recent army mutiny, the reports must be considered carefully.
Unconfirmed reports that I have received today gave details of events in Jaffna in recent days. On 21 and 22 July, army personnel kidnapped three Tamil girls, whose whereabouts are not known. An unconfirmed report alleges rape and says that one of the girls has committed suicide. On 23 July bombs were thrown into an army truck and 13 soldiers were killed. On 23 and 24 July the army went on a rampage in Jaffna and shot people at random. Seventeen are said to have been shot, including six schoolchildren and a man aged 83. In all, there are reports of at least 30 deaths. On 24 July that army section was returned to barracks.
Furthermore, it is reported that the Government have advised the Sinhalese to leave the Tamil areas. If that is true, it is a measure designed not to lower tension, but an invitation to the Sinhalese racists to begin attacks on the 50 per cent. of Tamils who live in the southern part of Sri Lanka in the Sinhalese areas.
The curfew that has been imposed in the capital of Colombo from 2 pm to 5 am is a belated gesture by the Government after their supporters had began racist attacks on the Tamils.
Even with that as a background, I wish to make it clear from the outset that, as a Marxist, I can give no support to individual acts of terrorism. That is not the way to prevent repression and restore the democratic rights of working people. Despite the terrible oppression and attacks within Sri Lankan society, only the unity of the mass of the population and the struggle for Socialist policies offer a way forward.
Over the weekend and during the latter part of last week, a series of reports indicated a sharp decline in democracy in Sri Lanka. On 21 July The Guardian reported;
Colombo (censored). The Government, using emergency powers, yesterday imposed press censorship on news of guerrilla activities. News of matters prejudical to national security, preservation of public order, the maintenance of essential supplies, incitement to civil commotion, and operations of the police and armed services will also be censored.

On the 22 July, the Sri Lanka high commissioner in New Delhi was called to the Indian Foreign Ministry. The report continues:
He was told that India was unhappy about Colombo's recent emergency regulation which permitted the disposal of bodies without inquests following action by security forces.
The report of 23 July tells us:
The Sri Lankan President, Junius Jayewardene, invoking emergency powers, yesterday removed the heads and senior administrative officers of the country's universities in an attempt to crack down on student unrest.
In at least one university the entire Tamil student population has now been expelled. All this has happened since the original reason for a request for this debate. The request was prompted by reports in the Daily Telegraph about official links between Sri Lanka and the British police. On 12 July, Ian Ward in Colombo reported:
The President indicated he was looking to Britain for expertise on, among other things, establishing an effective intellingence network against local terrorists. He saw the British problems in Belfast as somewhat parallel to the ones he was facing. Pointing out that his Government had been in touch with Whitehall for some time on this subject, the Sri Lankan leader added 'They are our old friends. We trust them'.
That was confirmed by The Economist on Saturday when an article appeared that stated:
President Junius Jayewardene of Sri Lanka told your correspondent on July 17th that he has asked Britain for `expertise and assistance' to deal with the growing violence by Tamils … The request to the former colonial power, even though Britain is a place with which western minded Mr. Jayawardene is on the friendliest terms … This week, whilst awaiting a message from Britain, he called a conference of the parliamentary parties (which was boycotted by the opposition) to discuss security, and banned Sri Lankan newspapers from publishing anything more about Tamil violence.
When asked about this matter in a written question on 18 July, the Minister responded only by talking about Government training courses. The reply is as printed in Hansard. This morning, he has an opportunity to expand and come clean about the contact between Sri Lanka and the British Government.
There has been a rapid worsening of the situation in Sri Lanka in the past few weeks. Moreover, there has been an increase in state repression and a worsening of communal violence between the Sinhalese and Tamil peoples. At the moment, the predominantly Tamil north of the island is virtually cut off and the Government have declared that no fuel will be sent there until their authority has been fully restored.
Some people might ask what concern this is of the British House of Commons. I shall demonstrate that British Governments past and present have a responsibility for the events in that unhappy island. Despite the fact that, in the past year, two British journalists have been harassed in Sri Lanka, events in the island — a member of the Commonwealth — have not been widely reported in Britain until recently. The Government are prepared to devote much comment to the repression of the Polish Stalinist totalitarian regime in an attempt to discredit the ideas of Marxism while ignoring or playing down the movement towards dictatorship in one of British imperialism's allies.
I have raised this subject for three reasons: first, British imperialism's historic responsibility for racism in Sri Lanka; secondly, both British and American imperialism are supporting the United National party Government to secure Sri Lanka as a strategic base in the Indian ocean; and thirdly, the labour movement in Britain has a


responsibility to support the struggles of workers in all countries against capitalism in the West and Stalinism in the East.
Historically, one of British imperia ism's main tactics to maintain control over the colonies was to divide the rule. Tory and Liberal Governments alike sponsored divisions in the colonies to avert the development of anti-imperialist movements. That often tool: the form of using a minority racial or religious group to staff the security forces and the colonial administration and to act as small traders. That tactic was used in Ireland, Cyprus, east Africa and throughout the Indian empire including Sri Lanka.
British imperialism consolidated its control in Sri Lanka in 1825 by the defeat of the kingdom of Kandy. The people of Sri Lanka did not ask to join the empire. They had no choice. Military force decided the issue. Having established its rule by force of arms, British imperialism set about exploiting the island. Plantations were soon established and, from the 1840s, Tamils from south India were imported as cheap labour. The imperial rulers relied on Tamils, who had previously settled in the islands, for administration. That developed communal tensions between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils, which representatives of the developing Sinhalese bourgeoisie later deepened and exploited.
I should like to deal with the conditions of the Tamil plantation workers today. The bulk of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka have been deprived of their citizenship and voting rights by one means or other since independence.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the hon.. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nellist: No. The debate lasts for one and a half hours, so there is plenty of time for everyone to speak.
Tamil workers were brought in by the British to work on the tea estates. Of those 1,200,000 Indian Tamils, 975,000 were officially declared stateless in 1964. Since then, agreement with India has meant that 600,000 were to be repatriated to India over 15 years while the rest were to remain in Sri Lanka as full citizens. The result has been anomalies, such as those in one district where there are 275,000 Tamils of whom only 22,000 are entitled to vote.
There are well over 1 million of the exploited, imported cheap labour Tamils who worked on the plantations and who New Society says might be described as water buffalo or wild elephants. They are Hindus whose ancestors were taken to Sri Lanka from south India as indentured labour for the British plantations from 1839, 80 per cent. of whom are harijans—"untouchables"— as distinct from the 2 million indigenous and in general caste—Hindu Ceylon Tamils. They were not only outcasts, but in one drastic blow they were also made aliens when, in 1948, the country became independent under Sinhalese-Buddhist majority rule. The citizenship Acts of 1948 and 1949 left the plantation Tamils stateless. The 1949 Act took away their franchise. In 1964 and 1974 pacts with India, not registered with the United Nations and without international judicial status, provided for the repatriation or deportation of 600,000 of them. The rest were to become citizens of Sri Lanka.
The life of a plantation worker in today's Sri Lanka is described in the article through one family. It can only "get through" until the twenty-second of each month with a meagre diet of rotis, coconut scrapings, rice and dal. The

worker may have eggs once a week, and meat perhaps once a month. After the twenty-second, if he is lucky, he and his wife, who earned a little over £5 for 26 days' labour, and the two children just manage to survive.
At the end of the month the situation is bad. As rations dwindle to zero, with only cups of tea for an empty stomach and nothing of value for the pawn shop, many of the workers, especially the women, starve. It is the women's life of work on the plantations that is the cruellest. They work from the time that they wake until the time that they go to sleep. They go thirsty and make the sacrifices. They are often bullied and beaten into the bargain. Their deficiency diseases and physical sufferings are therefore the most serious. More than half of them are said to be clinically malnourished. There are high stillbirth and infant mortality rates—perhaps more than 150 per 1,000 births — but in the last few years no official statistics have been published. The women earn about 60 per cent. of the men's wages, for exactly the same work and output.
The present president of Sri Lanka, JR Jayewardene, began his activities as a self-appointed defender of the Sinhalese Buddhists. As early as May 1944, JR moved on the State Council, which existed as a form of limited self-rule, that the Sinhala language be made the medium of instruction in all schools and a compulsory subject in all public examinations. It was after independence in the mid-1950s that the inter-communal violence began to develop seriously. JR himself did nothing to lower the tension. On the contrary, the Sri Lankan Tribune of 30 August 1957 reported JR as saying:
the time has come for the whole Sinhalese race … to fight without quarter to save their birthright. I will lead the disobedience campaign".
In 1970 a Popular Front Government were elected in Sri Lanka. Despite the popular support that they had at first, they were unable to solve the problems facing Sri Lanka because of its heterogeneous class composition and inadequate programme. The disillusionment caused by the Popular Front Government—in particular, the failure of the old workers' parties, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Communist party of Sri Lanka — resulted in a sweeping victory for JR and his United National party in 1977.
JR's victory was immediately followed by communal rioting. More than 200 died, and 10,000 Tamils were forced to move away from the predominantly Sinhala areas. Likewise, 2,000 were forced to move away from Tamil areas. Ostensibly appealing for calm, JR spoke to the nation on 28 July 1977 saying:
it is our duty to safeguard the Buddha Sasana. We will not spare any effort to protect, and further the cause of Sasana… The UNP Government intends … establishing a just society based on the teachings of Buddha.
Despite the sugary words of that appeal, it was a direct encouragement to the Buddhist Sinhala racists to attack the Hindu Tamils, as well as being an affront to the Hindu, Christian and Moslem minorities. Despite changing the island's name to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, UNP Government strategy has been to make the country attractive to foreign capitalist investors. Jayewardene's own slogan—as quoted in the Financial Times of 27 August 1980 — is, "Let robber barons come." That necessitated severely weakening the Sri Lankan trade unions.
The new Government began quickly to introduce anti-trade union measures. The Financial Times estimated that


10,000 workers had lost their jobs and that there had been punitive transfers of 15,000 teachers after the UNP election victory. That came from a report on 31 May 1978. On top of that, the Financial Times reported on 31 May 1980 that the UNP had
let loose its youth movement to beat up Marxist opponents in the universities and to disrupt trade union agitation.
Understandably, those measures met mounting resistance from the trade unions, and in 1980 a serious confrontation occurred. During a protest on 5 June 1980 a gang of UNP supporters, led by two UNP Members of Parliament, attacked a picket line, killing D. D. Somapala, a leader of the Government Workers Trade Union Federation. That resulted in a big strike movement four days later when Somapala was buried.
During the following weeks the Government began to sack workers who had been involved in both protests—a tactic which provoked the development of a general strike in early July. The general strike rapidly gathered support. Tragically, a section of the trade union leaders, while publicly supporting the strike, did not in practice mobilise their membership. That resulted in the defeat of the general strike and the sacking of more than 60,000 workers —mainly from the public sector.
The UNP Government's victory allowed them to continue the policies that they had begun in 1977. They were based on savage cuts in benefits, especially food and transport subsidies. In a country where the Paris newspaper Le Monde reports that wages are lower than in India, and which has suffered from continual inflation of up to 40 per cent. a year since 1977, those cuts had a terrible effect.
The "Europa Year Book" for 1983 gives a sign of the inflation rate during the past six years. The average market rate for rupees as against the United States dollar increased from 9·15 in 1977 to 19·246 in 1981. For many years Sri Lanka has enjoyed social benefits—unheard of in most of capitalist Asia — that have been won by the Sri Lankan labour movement over many years. Those benefits cushioned the effect of lower wages, but the cutting of many benefits has resulted in the infant mortality rate increasing in official statistics from 46 per thousand births in 1977 to 49 per thousand births last year.
Much has been made of the results of the UNP's new open door policy, but the reality is different. Since 1977 there has been some economic growth in Sri Lanka, but its effects are temporary. Last year the World Bank revealed that capitalism had failed to develop the so-called Third world. The World Bank reported that in 1980 Sri Lanka had a volume per capita of GDP almost 70 per cent. higher than in 1960, a fourfold increase in real capital investment, and an extraordinarily high capital inflow, yet reduced consumption. That report, from one of the main capitalist bodies, completely confirms the analysis of Marxism—that capitalism cannot in the present epoch develop the underdeveloped world.
Sri Lanka enjoyed a spurt of growth after 1977, but it did not last. From July 1980 the IMF was demanding austerity measures. That was partly caused by the enormous jump in Western aid to Sri Lanka from $134 million to $800 million. The "Asian Survey" of February this year revealed that in May 1982 an eight-year loan of $100 million was negotiated in London. What was the role of the Conservative Government in backing, securing,

underwriting or advising the bankers in making that loan? Sri Lanka is now the highest per capita receiver of United States and World Bank aid in Asia—a fact not entirely unlinked to the United States navy's desire to use Trincomalee port.
While that aid pushed up the growth rate for a while, so Sri Lanka must face the problem of having to repay the loans. Already between 1981 and 1982 interest payments rose from 25 to 33 per cent. of Government spending. At present the Sri Lankan Government spend twice what they earn and the country imports twice as much as it exports. That cannot last forever. The only capitalist solution that the UNP can produce is yet more austerity programmes. Knowing that this will provoke popular opposition, the Sri Lankan Government are continuing to introduce more repressive measures and seeking British help to train their security services. Like many Governments, the Sri Lankan Government have sought to justify their actions by pointing to the increase in terrorism, particularly in the Tamil areas.
I wish to make it clear that, as a Marxist, I do not support the policy or tactics of individual terrorism. Neither individuals nor even a mass of guerrillas can replace the working class in the struggle against oppression. Only a mass movement, of which we have seen many heroic examples in Sri Lanka, can establish a workers' democracy and begin to create a Socialist society which uses all the country's resources to create a just and equal society. Terrorism usually serves to disorientate the masses and provide Governments with the excuse to introduce repressive laws.
If we examine the record of the Sri Lankan authorities in recent years, we see that it is not easy to decide who the real terrorists are. Furthermore, the record raises the question of what control this Parliament has over the international activities of the British security services. If we look at the predominantly Tamil district of Sri Lanka, we can see that the real turning point took place in the period between May and June 1981. The Financial Times, which is not an anti-UNP journal, after the events, reported:
the police and army personnel—mainly comprising Sinhalese officers—have for the first time abandoned their neutrality. In some cases, they lead attacks on Tamil communities. It is officially admitted that they went 'on the rampage' in the Tamil capital of Jaffna in June.
In Jaffna, in May and June 1981, eight Tamils were murdered, including the private clerk of one of the Tamil Opposition Members of Parliament, and 11 Tamil Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, were arrested on the day of the district development council elections. The security forces attacked the homes of two Tamil Opposition Members and burnt down the Jaffna library—which was one of Asia's leading libraries with a collection of 97,000 books, many of which were rare —and many buildings and homes. Since then, there has been mounting opposition in the Tamil areas to the UNP Government and growing demands for self-rule. Tragically, due to the defeats that the opponents to the UNP rule have suffered, many Tamil youths have turned to guerrilla activities as a solution to the increasing racist attacks on them by the security forces.
Last year, JR held an early presidential election to secure re-election before the economic bubble burst. He secured re-election because some sections of the population were still enjoying the fruits of economic


growth, the main Opposition party's lack of credibility and the abstention of many Tamil voters. Having won the election, the President held a referendum on whether general elections should be postponed until 1989, and he was left with a two thirds majority in Parliament. Amid many accusations of intimidation, a low turnout and impersonation, including even that of J R's main opponent in the presidential election, the UNP won the referendum. With that majority the UNP is moving against all opposition in all parts of the island. Early in June, after the Supreme Court had given an Opposition leader compensation for illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment, thugs attacked the homes of the three Supreme Court judges concerned. No arrests were made, but the thugs arrived and departed in state-owned buses.
That has not been the only example of the semi-official condonement and harassment of the courts. Earlier this year, after a senior Buddhist monk had had a police officer convicted of violating his — the monk's — fundamental rights during the referendum campaign, a Cabinet Minister announced that the Government would pay the fine and the policeman was promoted to superintendent. The police officers involved in the later Supreme Court case were also promoted, on the day after the court judgment.
At the same time the UNP Government gave new powers to the police to deal with the circumstances. By 4 June the new regulation No. 15a was signed. It gave senior police officers the power to take
all such measures as may be necessary for tie taking possession and burial or cremation of any dead body, and to determine, in his discretion the persons who may be permitted to be present at … any such burial or cremation.
Given the many cases of torture and murder which have been reported by Amnesty International, it is clear that that regulation has only increased fear of the police and army in Tamil areas. After the disturbances of the past few days, how many more people will be buried as a result of that regulation? Will the Government condemn those antidemocratic powers?
How do the Government respond to this statement in The Guardian on 7 July:
An emergency regulation, recently promulgated under the Public Security Act, now permits police to bury or cremate bodies without inquiry or post mortem. President Jayewardene has announced that it 'provides the forces with more muscle'; it ensures that security personnel will in no way be harassed by the law in the event of being compelled to use their fire power. Civil rights lawyers describe it as a 'licence to kill' Tamil suspects"?
How will the Government comment on the new Prevention of Terrorism Act with
its unconstitutional retroactive provisions, permits prolonged detention incommunicado — up to 18 months — without explanation, for arrest, charge or trial and is thus an invitation to physical attack and torture"?
Another report in The Guardian on 6 July states:
Sri Lanka has been under almost continuous emergency rule since the early 1970s. But since the referendum of December 22, 1982, which extended the life of the Sri Lankan 'long parliament' to August 4, 1989—an unprecedented 12-year session—the concentration of powers in the hands of President Jayewardene has created a situation in which the army's authority is clearly growing and democratic safeguards in Parliament, the courts, and the press are becoming more fragile.
Confessions are admissible in evidence, despite being obtained by suspending a person from a beam with both hands tied, with a bagful of burnt chilli tubers tied over the head, chilli powders smeared all over the person, including the genitals, an iron bar in the rectum, a thin metal rod down the penis and lying on a bench being beaten on the back and the soles of the feet and with

chillies stuck up the nose. Contrast that with an election address of 17 September 1982 from Jayewardene when he promised:
An important contribution we have made was the enactment of a democratic Constitution that guarantees that the people of this country can live without fear and harassment, to conduct their affairs in accordance with the laws of the country and their fundamental rights.
What is the future for working people and peasants in a country where such promises are made during an election campaign but where the reality is torture, murder, beatings, disappearances, rampage, burnings, lootings and a tremendous decline in any decent democratic rights?
Sri Lanka, which is promoted in the press and on television as the jewel of the tourist resorts, has many resources in its raw materials and the cultural level of its people. For example Sri Lanka's literacy rate is 87 per cent. However, as the World Bank explained,
Far from going forward, society in Sri Lanka is going backwards.
Sri Lanka does not face such problems alone; they face the entire underdeveloped world.
In the past year, we have seen communal clashes in many countries, such as those in Assam in India and the expulsion from Nigeria of the so-called foreigners, to give just two examples. In many of the underdeveloped countries, the ex-colonial countries, we are witnessing the crisis of capitalism pushing these countries back towards barbarism. What can we do? The only alternative to that barbarism is Socialism. Only through the working class and its allies democratically planning the use of society's resources, can the economy be developed to meet the needs of the people, not the profiteers or the international bankers.
On the basis of a planned, democratically-controlled economy, freed from the disruption of the capitalist business cycle, it would be possible to begin raising the living standards, the cultural level and all aspects of life for ordinary working people. Capitalism has partially unified the world through the exploitation of ex-colonial countries for raw materials, interlinked with the forced importation of finished and semi-finished goods.
The trade between Britain and Sri Lanka illustrates this.
A report in The Times of 21 October 1981 states:
In 1980 Britain exported nearly £77m worth of goods, mainly machinery and transport equipment, and was the third largest supplier, after Japan and Saudi Arabia. With imports worth nearly £54m, mainly tea, coffee, spices, fruit, vegetables, rubber and coconut, it was Sri Lanka's second largest customer, after the United States.
The terms of trade between Britain and Sri Lanka are a microcosm of capitalism and imperialism that has plundered the Third world. The terms of trade for colonial and ex-colonial countries have changed so that more and more raw materials must be exported to import manufactured or semi-manufactured goods, or to pay for the rocketing interest charges on loans.
To complete the task that capitalism has partially developed of interlinking the world's economies requires international solidarity of working people to free countries, such as Sri Lanka, from the domination of the banks. A joint approach by workers is needed in the industrialised West and the ex-colonial countries to develop industry to provide for workers' needs, not multinationals' profits. Such a policy is a million light years away from what is falsely portrayed as Socialism in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, where democratic rights—the freedoms of speech, of assembly and of the


right to belong to a trade union—are all denied. Those countries are not Socialist. They are run by a bureaucratic elite who compare more with the free masons than with a genuine Socialist party.
I place before the Minister some questions for him to answer. Will he give a guarantee that the Government will publish a list of British firms which have subsidiaries in Sri Lanka, and what wage rates they pay? Can we see whether the Brooke Bonds or the Unilevers, or any other firm exploits the plantation workers? How many pence a day in wages are British profits being based on?
Will the Minister confirm the reports in the The Economist and in the Daily Telegraph of the spoken words of the President of Sri Lanka, saying to British correspondents that he is asking the Minister and his Department for close collaboration between the security forces and the police in this country and their counterparts in Sri Lanka?
Will the Minister give a guarantee that, given the state of the decline of democratic rights in Sri Lanka—the torture, the murder, the lootings, the beatings, the rampages of the army and of the police—collaboration between British security services and the police and Jayewardene's police will cease? When he replies, will he give a precise answer as to what response he has made to requests from the Sri Lankan Government in the last 10 or 12 days for explicit help from the security and police services of this country?
In the light of all the evidence that I have produced, will the Minister guarantee that the official state visit of President J. R. Jayewardene, scheduled for October this year will be cancelled? For Britain to offer the hand of friendship in the form of a state visit to the president of a country where torture and censorship are prevalent, or to offer conditional or unconditional support to Sri Lanka's policies, is not just a slap in the face but a disgraceful insult to the families of the workers and peasants of that country who have lost friends and relatives in the past few days.
I reiterate my own implacable opposition to the terrorist tactics, to the oppression and to the disgraceful human rights record in Sri Lanka. The way forward is to support the glorious traditions of the Sri Lankan working class in its fight for independence and decent living standards. The working people in that country must be united.
I stand four square behind the rights of minorities to self-determination. They must have that right. I believe that the future lies in co-operation and in bringing together people of all castes, creeds, colours and religions. Only then can the working class and its allies go forward in the development of Socialism.
My message to British workers is that we owe a debt and responsibility to working people internationally. We must extend the hand of solidarity in their time of need and link our organisations with those of the working class in Sri Lanka. We must break the bonds of capitalism and imperialism that jointly tie us down and work together for a society throughout the Asian subcontinent, Europe and the world in which the division by caste, poverty and class disappears. From those elements can be created a society, based on the fair and equal distribution of wealth, that can lift its head a foot higher. It must not be based, as at present, on greed and the squandering of wealth by multinational companies and international banks.
When the Minister replies, will he deal with my three points? Will he arrange for the publication of lists showing the wages that British firms pay to Sri Lankan workers? Will he end the collaboration between British and Sri Lankan security forces? Will he cancel the state visit by J. R. Jayewardene in October?

Mr. Michael Morris: The best that can be said of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is that the hon. Gentleman has a first-class clippings service. It was clear that he had not a clue about the geography of Sri Lanka and knew very little about its history. He did not even know that the Sri Lankan Government had nationalised the tea estates so that there were no British tea estates there. He is learning a few facts, however, and I hope that he will learn some more in the early hours of this morning.
The hon. Gentleman fed us a diet of Marxism. Certainly, that philosophy has not been sold to the House so enthusiastically in all the 10 years that I have been a Member. The hon. Gentleman does not really like democracy. He would prefer a pure marxist system. For all I know, he may get that in Coventry, but he will certainly not get it in Sri Lanka or in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman's speech today has any effect at all, it may be to succour the terrorism that he claims not to support. He has introduced a mischevious debate and on his shoulders and on his words today the lives of many Sri Lankans may rest. I deplore that.
I wish to put the record straight on a few facts about Sri Lanka. I worked there with one of our multinational companies in the early 1960s. I have visited Sri Lanka both officially and privately, and I have toured the whole country. I know Sri Lanka on the ground and I know many Sri Lankans. I know members of the United party and also the Leader of the Opposition there, and during my visits I have had talks with both.
I wish to put on record, first, the fact that Sri Lanka is multiracial and multireligious. In summary, the statistics are as follows. There are 11 million Sinhalese, 1·8 million Sri Lankan Tamils, 1 million Sri Lankan Moors and 800,000 Indian Tamils. There is harmony of religion, with Buddhism, Hinduism and all kinds of variations of other eastern religions. There is also a fair degree of communal harmony. There is certainly better communal harmony in Sri Lanka than there was in Calcutta when I worked there or in other parts of south-east Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the Eelam, but he should be clear about what he has been put up to. It was clear from his contribution that he knew nothing about the country, so someone put him up to it, which was despicable in itself. He has been put up to supporting the movement for an independent Tamil state.

Mr. Nellist: That is rubbish.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman may wish to change his position, but I came here to listen to him and that is my interpretation of his speech.
I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the island of Sri Lanka is and will remain a unitary state run on a multiracial and multireligious basis. Certain fundamental rights were adopted by the Sri Lankan Parliament in September 1978 and written into the constitution, covering


the requirements that no person shall be subject to torture, that all are equal before the law, and that no person shall be arrested except through procedures established by the law. Moreover, Sri Lanka has signed a number of international agreements emphasising those fundamental rights.
The key dimension for me is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the President of Sri Lanka is a dictator. The hon. Gentleman might help international relations if he would do the President the honour of calling him by his correct name, but of course he does not know how to pronounce a Sri Lankan name because he had no previous interest in the country and his speech today was a put-up job from start to finish.
The key point that the incoming President made and the one change that the people of Sri Lanka wanted concerned the Tamil language. Until Jayewardene took over in the 1978 elections, the Tamil language was nowhere. It was he who made it a national language. He and his party ensured that Members of the Sri Lankan Parliament may speak in either of the national languages, that a person has the right to be educated in either language, that the administration of the northern and eastern provinces should be in Tamil, that publications must be in both national languages, that examinations may be taken in either language, and so on.
Mrs. Bandaranaike and her Marxists did not produce that kind of policy. Sri Lanka had nearly 10 years of the hon. Gentleman's ideal Marxist policy. The workers had it, but it did not work. The people of Sri Lanka wanted democracy. There were free elections in 1977 when the new Government were elected. At least the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that they were not free. Perhaps he did not have a cutting to help him pretend that they were not. That key decision on language was taken by the President, and that is a monument to his desire to have full integration in the island. That was never done before.
Secondly, after consultation with Amirthalingam, the Secretary-General of the TULF and Leader of the Opposition—in whose house I have had the pleasure of discussing the policy on the Tamil area—and by a joint party decision a district development council programme was established. That was done to try to establish decision-making at the lowest level in the community so that the problems associated with bureaucracy from the centre—from which any country suffers, be it west, east, developed or underdeveloped—could be dealt with at local level. That was welcomed by the Tamil community.
Progress was made. The problem is that there is a small band of Tamils who do not want Sri Lanka to succeed, who do not believe in democracy and who want an independent state. There are terrorist elements, despite the fact that the Government were democratically elected with a sweeping majority and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the terrorist element should be left to do what it wishes?
The people about whom we should really be concerned are those who have been murdered by the terrorists—by the Tamil tigers, as I believe they are called. The people who died in the early stages were the Tamils who were trying to work with the generality of life in Sri Lanka. The leading Tamils were picked off in the early days. That is where the problem started.
Since then there have been a series of tragedies, in which police, armed forces and other leading Tamils have been killed. Yesterday, we heard that another 13 people

had died, bringing the total to 87. As a result of that, the Government introduced a prevention of terrorism Act, in the same way as we have introduced it for Northern Ireland and in the same way as Canada and other countries have on occasions had to introduce such an Act as a temporary measure. That is the proper reaction of a responsible Government to a difficult situation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Amnesty International report, which I view with great concern. I have read it all. I think that the hon. Gentleman has read it all. I hope that he has done so, but I wonder whether he has done so. I note that the allegations are not as concrete as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The reports contains words such as "may", "perhaps", "we think", as well as allegations which have been categorically refuted by the Sri Lankan Government.
The hon. Gentleman may smile, but they have been. Even more convincing is the fact that some of the timings have been categorically challenged. I note that the extent of the visit was nine days and that it has taken 18 months to produce the report.

Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman reads the introduction, he will learn why.

Mr. Morris: On the whole I value greatly the work of Amnesty International, but I note that some of the persons involved are known to be anti-Government and that their families have been involved in the Communist party. I do not challenge them for that, but they are involved in Amnesty International and are anti the Jayewardene Government. Some of the report reflects that. I am more prepared to accept the word of the Sri Lankan Government than that of the hon. Gentleman.
His Excellency Jayewardene was elected Prime Minister in 1977 by a democratic vote. There was a better turnout than that in Coventry, South-East at the election, and he obtained a five sixths majority. In the first Presidential election he gained 52·9 per cent. of the vote and won 21 out of the 22 electoral districts. The only one he did not win was Jaffna., but he won the eastern area which is Tamil almost as much as Jaffna. He won substantial majorities in other areas with Tamil populations. He received messages of support not only from Britain and America, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, but from the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Canada and Poland. If the hon. Gentleman cares to mention a country that I have not listed, he will no doubt find that it also sent a message of congratulation.
The hon. Gentleman must take on board the fact that the Sri Lankan people are a proud and lively people. They love their politics. They are full of energy and they make democracy work in a Third world context, and we should admire that. The hon. Gentleman may not have travelled a great deal, but some of us have travelled the Third world. If there was as much democracy in the remainder of the Third world as there is in Sri Lanka, the world would be getting somewhere. Sri Lanka takes its financial obligations seriously and is committed to the full protection of human rights. It believes, like Britain, that terrorism should be rooted out.
When just over a year ago this country faced great difficulties with the Falklands campaign, Jayewardene was one of the leaders of other countries who showed us understanding and support in our time of need. We are


right to repay our thanks to him by inviting him to come to this country. He will get a warm welcome from the vast majority of hon. Members.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): The House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for at least giving us the opportunity to debate Sri Lanka and our relations with that country at this serious and crucial time in the history of that republic. But the House must be especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) for introducing a note of very much needed balance into what was a Marxist tract, read to us at 6 o'clock in the morning. That would be difficult enough to take at any time, but at this stage in the morning and when dealing with such a serious subject, it proved hard to take. I hope that in the next few minutes I can set right the balance which the hon. Gentleman tried so grieviously to upset.
I wish, first, to put into context our relationship with Sri Lanka, with which we have had long-standing ties. They are not the hoary, boring old ties of the hon. Gentleman's Marxist-Imperialist-Capitalist claptrap but the real ties of productive, honourable, constitutional and democratic relationships. I understand that some of those values are less attractive to the hon. Member than they are to the majority of hon. Members and people throughout the country.
When Her Majesty the Queen paid her second visit to Sri Lanka in 1981, one of the purposes was to commemorate 50 years of adult franchise in Ceylon and Sri Lanka, during which Governments repeatedly changed. Governments of widely varying complexions ruled, many of them paying lip service to the same false god that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East worships—the god of Marxism. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South pointed that out.
British Governments have contributed over the years to Sri Lanka's democratic life. They have given manifestation to the tremendous dedication to democracy which is to be much admired and which is a jewel in the crown of the countries with which we have been associated for so long and with which we are now happily associated within the Commonwealth.
When the situation is so bad, we should recognise that certain serious developments are deep seated. The Tamil community's problems have been developing for many years. Much effort has been devoted to solving them.
My hon. Friend mentioned many of the measures taken to bring the two communities to greater harmony. The sadness is that Sri Lanka has been subjected to the minority violence of terrorism which has become a feature of the modern world. My hon. Friend referred to similarities with Northern Ireland. There is a Marxist element in the violence in Northern Ireland, I presume that the hon. Member for Coventry South-East would approve of that.

Mr. Nellist: No.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman says, "No." I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Nellist: I made it clear on three occasions that I stand implacably opposed to the methods of terrorism

because they are no real substitute for achieving social change for the mass of population. They provide an excuse for Governments to introduce repressive measures. That, for me, is a principle. Individual terrorism, whether it involves the most genuine elements such as the Robin Hoods robbing the rich to give to the poor or more extreme forms, is counter productive. It does not take society forward. It only introduces more repression and more deaths. If I have to say that even more times to get it through the skulls of Government Members, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall do so. I have made my position clear on four occasions.

Mr. Whitney: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East did not accept my invitation to condemn IRA violence in Northern Ireland. I shall give way again if the hon. Gentleman wishes. When he has been in the House longer he will understand that, although he did not give way at all, those who are not Marxist are very happy to give way because they do not fear democratic debate. If the hon. Gentleman cares to condemn IRA violence the House will welcome it.

Mr. Nellist: From the earliest days of my political life in the early 1970s and coming from the midlands where, particularly in the mid-1970s young workers died, I have always opposed, whether in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka or elsewhere, the use by the IRA, by the Tigers about which the hon. Member for Northampton, South thinks I know nothing, by the Tupamaros or any of the organisations of Latin America, the use of individual terrorism. I have stated clearly that mass organisations of working people — the trade unions and working-class political parties—are the only instruments that working people can use to affect social change. The bomb and the bullet used by individual bands of people in Ireland, no matter how well intentioned, will not bring about what they see as Irish unification. That will come not through the tactics of the Provisional IRA but only through the unity of Catholic and Protestant workers, through the building of a Labour party that crosses the religious divide and through working class expression against the exploitation that takes place in Northern Ireland. Is that criticism and statement clear enough for the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. We must get back to Sri Lanka.

Mr. Whitney: I understand your concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important because the House has been treated to a Marxist diatribe. With respect, we are making progress. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, speaking from the Opposition Benches with a Marxist voice, now recognises and is prepared to condemn what he refers to as individual violence. I hope that it will extend a little beyond that. I hope that eventually he will come to understand that parliamentary democracy is the way and not some mass community action, be it in Ireland or in Sri Lanka, which, as you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate.
The Government of Sri Lanka have over the years tried to pursue a policy of reconciliation. We have welcomed their determination to work towards a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Gentleman has gone now.

Mr. Whitney: We welcome the discussions with the leaders of the Tamil community and the progress towards


a settlement of the intercommunal difficulties, but that must be made within the constitutional framework that is available to them.
That, rather than a resort to violence, is the right course. It must be accepted by all that: the problems that have been generated over many years certainly cannot be put right overnight. Patience, understanding and tolerance will be called for, and we sincerely hope that the efforts towards a peaceful solution to these complex problems will be successful.
We deeply regret the latest incidents over the weekend and the reports of the deaths of 13 soldiers. The House will wish to join me at this difficult time for the people of the island in giving every support to the Government of Sri Lanka in their efforts to prevent further violence which can do nothing to solve the problems of the country. I am glad that even the hon. Gentleman appears prepared to recognise that.
We must set the allegations in the Amnesty report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South referred and dealt with so effectively, against this difficult background. We have noted the allegations made in the report—they were not clear charges—and we have noted also that the Government of Sri Lanka themselves have said that they are committed to the full protection of human rights of all the people of the country and that they take their international obligations seriously. We welcome those assurances and we certainly do not doubt their sincerity.
Sri Lanka, like Britain, is a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights and to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. We are convinced that the Government of Sri Lanka are well aware of their international obligations. The Government of Sri Lanka can be in no doubt that the British Government deplore violations of human rights wherever they occur. We have made our position clear on many occasions and we continue to play a leading role, for example at the United Nations, and consistently stress our concern for the principle of human rights. We shall continue to do so.
However, that was not the burden of the message of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. His theme seemed to be to take his Marxism and apply it, in this case to Sri Lanka, though that country seemed somewhat incidental to the idyllic, idealistic view that the hon. Gentleman and the small band of people who think like him wish to impose on the world.
I wanted to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman, in his traditional style, would not accept an intervention, when he said that there was no Marxism in the Soviet Union, Poland, China or anywhere else. I wanted to invite the hon. Gentleman to tell the House where his Marxist dream had been realised in perfection.

Mr. Nellist: Show me a country where capitalism is working.

Mr. Whitney: To save the hon. Gentleman making such interventions from a sedentary position, I will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give him another opportunity. If he would ever like to tell the House where his ideal can bring a Utopia for workers of all types—with the freedom and prosperity of which he speaks—he will be listened to with great attention.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that what is happening in Sri Lanka confirms the analysis of Marxism that exploitation cannot develop the underdeveloped world. He is standing truth on its head. His attack on capitalism bore no relationship to the challenges that we face from the great progress that has been achieved in many parts of the world that were underdeveloped until recently.
I make no comment on political systems, but in terms of the working of the free market economy, the interplay of international capital and the free movement of goods, we are being challenged by the progress made by many Asian countries that are effectively using the basic principles of free trade and the free market economy. The places where the economy is depressed and human rights are virtually extinguished are those that are moving nearer to the ideal Marxist state propounded by the hon. Member.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the dictatorship in Sri Lanka. There is no dictatorship there. There is a thriving democracy, which has a serious problem with its minority. Therefore, it needs understanding, co-operation and help from us, and that is what it will receive, on the basis of our long-standing relationship with the people and successive Governments of Sri Lanka.
I am happy to reply to the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. He spoke about the wages of some companies in Sri Lanka and I suggest that he should invite his friends there, if he has any, to ask the democratically, constitutionally elected Government of Sri Lanka to take whatever action may seem appropriate for their own people.
I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we collaborate with the police force of Sri Lanka, as we do with the police forces of many other Commonwealth countries. We are proud of that. In reply to another question, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there have been no specific requests over the past 10 days.
The hon. Gentleman then asked if we would cancel the state visit of President Jayewardene. I am pleased to tell him that we shall certainly not cancel the visit. President Jayewardene will be an honoured and most welcome guest. His visit will give us an opportunity to discuss with him the problems of his country, and if there are ways we can help, we shall certainly do so. Those are the ways of democracy. They are not the ways of Marxism. They are the ways we offer, the ways to a peaceful, prosperous and free Sri Lanka.

Housing (Repair and Construction)

Mr. Chris Smith: I rise to draw the attention of the House — and the Government, who have clearly not recognised the extent of the problem—to the desperate need in Britain to improve the levels of funding for repair and construction work in public housing.
The problem begins—and any analysis of the problem should begin—with the question of housing need. I doubt whether any Conservative Members have known what it is like literally to be homeless, totally dependent on decisions made by others about one's housing accommodation; thrown into bed and breakfast accommodation by an uncaring local authority, living, as a man just 10 doors from me has lived, in a damp basement, the sole remaining tenant of a private landlord, with the rest of the house being sold off around him as part of the private property boom, the social revolution, about which we have heard so much from the Government. He is scared and worried as he is literally harassed by his landlord.
Nor do Conservative Members know what it is like to live on Bentham Court Estate in a decaying environment with graffiti and urine-covered staircases, with damp and condensation filling the flats, the tenants waiting patiently for sufficient funds to be available for the full rehabilitation of their estate.
Those are examples of the human side of housing need, the very real despair and misery felt by hundreds of thousands of people throughout Britain who lack the most basic right of all, the right to have a decent roof over their head, and without that right nothing else — no other freedom—becomes possible.
Even when that human need is translated into statistics, the result is alarming. Let us look briefly at Islington, of which my constituency forms half. On 1 April there were about 8,000 people on Islington's waiting list. That represented an increase of 40 per cent. on April of the previous year. The rate of increase accelerated during that period of 12 months. In the first quarter of 1982–83, 73 applications a week were being received. In the last quarter, 115 applications a week were coming in for the housing waiting list. At the same time, 1,915 households had applied as homeless to the borough in that year. That was an increase of 36 per cent. on the previous 12 months.
Hackney and Islington between them still have the highest proportion of unfit housing in London, as shown by the census returns of 1981 and the recent Greater London house condition survey. All the evidence shows, therefore, that apart from a high basic level of need in any case, that need is now increasing at an alarming rate.
At the same time, the supply of rented accommodation is falling. It is falling as a direct result of cuts in housing investment funds that have been imposed by this and the previous Conservative Government. Two years ago, 400 flats or houses were available for letting in Islington. The figure now is usually below 200. In 1982–83 fewer flats were available for letting than for seven years previously. That was the tail end of the rehabilitation boom of the late 1970s. The supply of new or rehabilitated accommodation has dried up, which is hardly surprising, because it reflects what has happened nationally with the lowest number of housebuilding starts since the 1920s.
In addition to all these problems, we have in Islington the problem of the transferred GLC estates, to which I have referred previously. There are problems of disrepair. There is a desperate need to upgrade and improve them, a need that is greater, if anything, than the need in the older estates which were previously Islington estates. Entirely inadequate funds are available either in revenue terms or in capital terms under the transfer orders and HIP allocations that are made available to the GLC and through it to the boroughs. These funds have been commented on by Conservative-controlled boroughs as well as by Labour authorities. All the local authorities in London are agreed that the level of funds that are available to repair and improve the ex-GLC estates are inadequate.
In addition, there are the added problems that are posed by non-traditional methods of construction, which were encouraged deliberately by Governments and environmental departments of all political persuasions throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. We had concrete blocks, which caused rampant condensation, dampness and cold-bridging, with fungus and mould growing on the walls. We had deck-access flats with no sense of community within estates. We had Bison wall-frame blocks, with panels falling off the outside. We had Airey homes, which needed to be demolished or to have thousands of pounds spent on them to bring them into a proper condition.
The Government have partly recognised the problem, because they have made special provision for Airey homes where the right to buy has been exercised. But they have not recognised the problems that face local authorities or the tenants of local authorities. They do not seem to be interested in helping local authorities with the enormous bills that they face —the Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimates that the overall bill will be about £5,000 million — to put right the non-traditional construction over the next few years.
The Government's response has been to ignore both housing need in general and particular problems. When complaints are made, the Government explain that they are interested in giving people the right and the freedom of choice to become home owners. For most of my constituents, that is not a realistic option. In Islington nearly a quarter of the adult population are unemployed. The wages of those who are employed are consistently lower than the average wage.
The operation of market forces in the property market puts prices far beyond the scope of the great majority of ordinary people who are my constituents. Prices are being pushed ever upwards in the property market. Home ownership is a realistic option for only a very few people. The majority of my constituents need homes to rent, and they need those homes to be put into better repair, to be in better condition, to be set in a better environment and to be provided in greater numbers than at present.
The long-term answer to the problem is to have proper levels of investment under the housing investment programme allocations for local authorities. However, HIP allocations have been repeatedly cut in the past three years. It looks as though the new Government will continue that policy. Those allocations suddenly spurted last Christmas when the Secretary of State for Defence, who was then the Secretary of State for the Environment, realised that something was going wrong with the capital spending figures. I am pleased that Islington was one of the authorities which were able to avail themselves of that


spurt in funding. However, a cycle of cuts and spurts is no way in which to run a sensible housing investment programme.
We need a massive injection of proper levels of funding into the repair of existing housing and the provision of new housing to rent. For areas such as Islington, the HIP allocations of the past few years simply need doubling to meet the scale of the problems. We also need greater certainty about allocations. We have the 80 per cent. rule, for which we are thankful, but it is not sufficient because it does not enable local authorities to plan ahead properly, to commit themselves to contracts, to do the necessary architectural work or to plan a proper programme for the housing needs of their area. If we had proper forward planning and genuine allocations in real terms for the future rather than for 12-month periods, there would be far less danger of underspending by many local authorities.
Before the Minister makes great play of underspending throughout the country, I remind him that Islington is one authority which has consistently spent the funds that were available to it, and that last year the GLC met all of its targets in spending the available allocation. We need far greater certainty and proper forward planning, with proper levels of investment.
In that respect, we have a major problem with improvement grants. The Government provided extra funding authority last year and have done so again this year for improvement grants to the private sector but no commitment has yet been given to extend that funding for improvement grants into the next financial year.
Improvement grants require spending over a relatively long time. There is a long lead time for the spending of money on a property by a private owner. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for a local authority to plan the spending of improvement grants and the basis on which it should make improvement grants available in the short term. I hope that the Minister will feel able to commit a guarantee of extra funding for improvement grants in 1984–85, not simply for the current year.
As if all of those problems were not enough, the Government have a blind spot in that they ignore the revenue impact of that portion of expenditure on capital work in housing which is not met by subsidies. That expenditure therefore falls as a debit in inner city areas on the housing revenue account and the cost must be met by the ratepayers. Moreover, it counts as revenue expenditure and can qualify for block grant penalty. We had the absurdity last Christmas of the Secretary of State for Defence encouraging authorities such as Islington to spend more in capital terms, while penalising authorities such as Islington for the revenue impact of precisely the same spending.
Will the Minister therefore commit the Government to expanding such rate-borne consequences of expenditure from consideration for block grant penalty? Of course, that will become an extremely important question, with the new promised legislation on rate capping for local authorities. I hope that the Minister will accept that as a difficulty that is faced by inner city local authorities with large housing revenue account deficits. But of course the demand for extra money, for a sensible planning policy and for sensible treatment of rate support grant will be criticised by the Government as asking for too much money, as being too expensive and as being a drain on public expenditure. I passionately disagree with all of that.
However, even if those arguments are accepted, there are decisions that can be taken by the Minister on a whole host of items, even within a given ceiling of expenditure. He could take them later today if he wished to, and they would make life a lot easier for tenants, for those on waiting lists, and for local authorities and housing associations which are struggling to provide decent housing in their areas. I shall go through some of the items on which the Minister could decide.
First, the Minister could speed up and relax the project control guidelines and mechanisms for local authorities. He could let local authorities know, for example, what ground rules are used by his Department in determining whether to accept a project under project control. He could explain why some projects in my constituency which are below 100 per cent. on the scale of cost and value have been refused, while projects in other constituencies which have been up to 130 per cent. above cost guidelines have been accepted. The Minister could begin to lay down some ground rules to guide local authorities on what will be accepted and what is likely to be rejected.
Secondly, the Minister could make it easier under the project control system and under the new total indicative cost system for housing associations to renovate houses into single family dwellings, instead of—as happens at present — effectively forcing houses into multiple conversions that are consistently divorced from the desperate need for family accommodation with gardens. The way in which the present system operates is that local authorities have to put forward proposals for conversions in order to get projects through the project control system. If they simply put forward proposals for rehabilitation as a single family dwelling, it is more likely to be rejected than if it is a conversion. That means that the priorities are wrong when it comes to housing need. The Minister could quite easily change the guidelines to achieve a more sensible policy.
Thirdly, the Minister could speed up the process of listed building consent. Those processes are currently causing chronic delays in, for example, the Lloyd Baker area of Clerkenwell in my constituency, where virtually every building is listed, and where it is very difficult for the local authority to proceed with rehabilitation schemes until listed building consent has come through. There are chronic delays both at the GLC and at the Department of the Environment.
Fourthly, the Minister could bring back Parker Morris. For all Parker Morris's faults, it did at least form a basic guarantee of minimum standards. Now, of course, they are no longer mandatory. Standards and quality are falling, especially where projects are constrained by cost and project control criteria.
Fifthly, the Minister could go for proper standards on items that are currently excluded from approval. An example of that was provided by a constituent who telephoned me yesterday. She lives in a rehabilitated flat in Richmond avenue. The flat is affected by severe damp, with wallpaper peeling off the walls and mould growing up them in her kitchen and bathroom in the rear extension to the flat. The reason for that is that there were insufficient funds under project control when the building was rehabilitated to put proper insulation and a good heating system into those two rooms. It happens far too often and is a classic example of the blind cutting of costs at the outset of the project to conform with the current


system, which only causes greater cost to the local authority in the end, and much distress to the tenant in the meantime.
Sixthly, the Minister could amend the new local authority total indicative cost system for the funding of housing associations and co-operatives. He could grant discretion to local authorities to give percentage increases in areas up to the level normally given at present by the Housing Corporation. That is not at present available to local authorities and, as a result, housing associations are being discouraged from approaching local authorities for funds and are turning almost exclusively to the Housing Corporation in areas where those percentage increases are needed.
Seventhly, the Minister could relax the higher standards of rules for housing association funding. He could end the absurdity of builders' work in connection with the provision of telephone cables being excluded as a luxury item in housing association grant approval. In one block of flats that was renovated, if work had not been carried out, while the renovation was going on, to instal telephone cabling, no one moving into those flats could have had a telephone. It was essential that the work should be carried our, yet the cost of that was discounted as being a luxury item and a higher standard.
Eighthly, the hon. Gentleman could allow compensation to be paid for inconvenience, noise disturbance, dust and the disruption of their peace and quiet while work is under way with tenants in residence. At present there is no system whereby any compensation for inconvenience can be paid to such tenants. I was astonished by the Minister's reply to my written questions on the subject some weeks ago. The tenants of Samuel Lewis Trust buildings in Liverpool road in my constituency have been suffering for two years because of contractors on their estate. It astonishes me that the Minister did not regard that as suitable for compensation, whereas if someone moves out of his flat because work has to be done, it is regarded as being worthy of considerable compensation. Will the Minister give some thought to allowing compensation as part of the capital cost of the work being carried out?
Ninthly, the Minister could give grant subsidy to local authorities on major items of work, which have to be added to repair or improvement contracts during the course of work. At present such items are excluded from subsidy approval, and often they arise from problems that were unforseeable at the outset of a contract. We must operate the subsidy system much more carefully. Two estates in my constituency have suffered from the problem.
Tenthly, the Minister could allow local authorities to acquire properties by agreement from the private sector, especially where elderly owner-occupiers wish to sell their properties to the council in return for secure tenanted accommodation for the rest of their days. At the moment, it is extremely difficult for local authoritiies to receive permission to acquire by agreement and then to use the property for renting.
The eleventh point is that the Minister could allow local authorities to consent to dispose of properties far more readily to housing associations and co-operatives, which can often bring those properties into use more rapidly. The present process is painful, slow and uncertain. No political

point is gained by deliberate delays that are injected into the process, and I plead with the Minister to make that process of consent to dispose easier and more rapid.
The Secretary of State could rather more frequently uphold his inspectors' decisions on compulsory purchase orders and allow local authorities to proceed with compulsory purchase where clear public benefits are to be gained and the inspector concurs.
On all those fronts there are simple steps which the Minister could take easily by administrative action and which would smooth the path to the creation of good rental housing at prices people can afford. These are all important minor matters, but beyond that it is necessary for the Government to recognise the scale of the housing problem, especially in the inner city areas, and to respond with proper and increased levels of investment. If the Minister can give no hope or help even on the minor points that I have listed, let alone on the major one of the level of investment required, what answer can I return to the tenants of Bentham Court who are anxiously and patiently waiting for improvements to their estate and to the lady in Richmond avenue with no heating in her extension rooms?
What answer can I return to the family on Barnsbury estate with four children and another on the way in a two-bedroom flat? They have nowhere to move to because there are no available flats. What answer can I return to the tenants of the Samuel Lewis Trust who are pleading for some compensation for their constant distress during two years of building work? What answer can be returned to the hundreds of thousands of homeless or poorly housed people? The scale of the problem is vast and distressing, and it is a cause for anger and action. The scale of the Government's response so far has been pitiful.

Dr. David Clark: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. It is an important topic and I believe that it is useful that the House be constantly reminded of the difficulties that face so many people in the housing market. Not only should the House be reminded of this, but through the House we must remind the Government of their absolute failure in housing. It is hard to imagine areas as different as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. Geographically, we are 300 miles apart, yet, as I listened to him, I recalled that I face the same problem in south Tyneside as he faces in Islington. During the past four years the problems became worse, and they will continue to become worse. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out the Government's failure to tackle the problem of public housing. In a sense, it seems that the Government have a vendetta against local authorities, especially when it comes to housing.
My hon. Friend mentioned also the private landlord problem which is much greater in parts of London than in other parts of the country. Even in my constituency where there are few private landlords, often the poorest accommodation is in the private sector. I vividly recall that during the election campaign, I came across an old lady in her 80s who had no inside toilet and had to walk down the yard to get to one. She had no hot water. The landlord was a Tory councillor, which shows that things have not changed over the years. The Minister is one of the few to have shown some courtesy and visited south Tyneside. He has seen some of our problems. The local authority has


spent more than it should have done on housing and I am sure that it will have it knuckles rapped. We took advantage of the Government's offer six months ago and grabbed all the money that we could. However, Government cuts mean that we still have people who have no hope of having central heating installed, window frames renewed, their houses rewired and bathrooms
The problems that we face are faced throughout the country—in Bermondsey, Islington and elsewhere. If one analyses the problem, one comes to the conclusion that the Government's ideological dogma is put before people's needs. That charge can be made in many areas but especially housing.
I have heard the Government talk about freedom. The Conservative party claims that it is the party of freedom. I have said before, and I repeat, that I do not believe that it knows the meaning of freedom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said slightly differently, decent housing is one of the basic freedoms to which people are entitled together with the freedom of a job, health, education and so on.
If we study public expenditure we find that the areas which are essential to freedom are those that the Government have seen fit to cut the most—education, health, pensions and housing. Housing has perhaps been cut more than most. The Government would be well-advised to listen to my hon. Friend's point about the rolling programme. It is becoming increasingly difficult for local authorities to plan on an ad hoc, Government grant year-to-year basis. My local authority draws up plans. That is followed by Government cuts and paring, and everything is thrown into disarray. Alternatively their are problems such as the Airey and Orlit houses, to which my hon. Friend has referred, which again throw out the housing departments' programmes and work schedules. The Government should consider this ad hoc year-to-year financing more seriously.
I made the point that I felt that the Government had singled out housing to bear the brunt of their planned reductions. I do not want to quote figures because I believe that they often confuse the House, but there has been a reduction of over 60 per cent. during the past four years in the Government's planned provision for the housing market. That has been especially true about the housing investment programme. The result has been that in many areas local authorities have had to double rents. Although local authorities have taken the blame for that, it should have been placed firmly at the Government's door.
It is not just that rents have increased but, as my hon. Friend said, there has been a catastrophic decline in the number of houses being built, especially in the public sector. As the Minister is aware, fewer public sector houses are being built than at any time since the 1920s. I know that the Government take some joy from the latest figures, and we too are pleased that there has been an increase. However, it has been an increase from a very low plane to which the Government took them figures down.
All this would be all right if there were not a demand for houses. There is a crude surplus of about 500,000 houses. However, if we take into account the second home market, the vacant dwellings, people between moves, that figure must be adjusted. If one does all the calculations on the basis of the figures used by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—I am sure that the Minister will be happy to accept them—there is a short-fall of

about 500,000. What appears to be a crude surplus of just under 500,000 changes, when all these other factors are taken into account, into a shortfall of over 500,000.
That is one major problem to which the Government are not addressing their mind, but it is not only that that worries the Opposition. In addition, there is the large number of houses in a state of disrepair. Probably over 1,250,000 houses are in a state of serious disrepair, and well over 1 million are unfit for human habitation. That was at the end of 1981. That must worry the Government. The Opposition would not pretend that these problems could be solved at a stroke, but let us look at the enormity of this task of putting into decent shape those houses that are unfit. One estimate is for £20,000 million.
Unless the Government change their mind and start trying to tackle the problem, that £20,000 million will become geometrically worse as the years go by. It is worth reminding the House that at current spending and current rate of building, it will take 666 years to replace the existing stock. That is one of those useless statistics that is still worth quoting because it reminds the House, and especially the Government, of the enormity of the task facing them, and of their abject failure to tackle the problem.
I know that the Minister will talk about renovating grants and the new initiatives announced last year, all of which we welcome. However, they have to be measured against the reduction in house building over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a pertinent point when referring to the extra cost involved in these renovation grants. The problem is serious in that respect.
I know that my local authority would like to operate the system more efficiently, if it could, but, in view of Government cuts, and the Government's strictures on local spending, there are many worthwhile schemes in my constituency, that may have been registered and may benefit under the scheme, but which have now waited many months for the schemes to be implemented, through no fault of the local authority, but through the fault of the Government in not allowing a local authority to take on extra staff.
One can make an excellent and irrefutable case showing that the Government have failed the nation when it comes to the building of new houses and the renovation of old ones. As a result of their failure, many people are suffering greatly from the Government's policy, in this matter of basic human rights. The Government's plan does not make sense. A relevant housing programme will cost extra in resources. However, savings can be made, and it would then be financially imprudent for the Government to go ahead and live up to their level of housing investment.
I wish to put my argument in simple terms. We all know that one of the fastest ways to get the economy moving is to stimulate the construction industry. The industry constantly reminds us of that fact. and I think that economists have proved that to be true. Recently I examined the unemployment figures for my constituency. Nationally, hundreds of thousands of building workers are unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of people who worked in trades such as plumbing and bricklaying are also unemployed. If the Government stimulated their own housing investment programme, the unemployment level would be reduced at a stroke.
I shall narrow the argument down to my own constituency. According to the latest figures that I have,


more than 800 building workers are unemployed in my constituency. The cost to the nation in lost national insurance contributions, lost tax, unemployment benefit and administration is between £100 and £120 per week for each of those building workers. That is not much less than they would be getting if they were in work and contributing to society.
The Minister also knows that there are acres of flat and derelict land in my constituency ready to build upon, but unfortunately nobody wishes to buy the land or to build on it. Moreover, 7,000 people are on the waiting list for houses in my constituency. My weekly surgeries show that the problem is getting worse week by week. It makes sense for the Government to increase their housing investment policy. Although it would be a considerable sum, great savings could be made in unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury deserves credit for bringing this subject to the notice of the House in such a compassionate and concerned manner. He has done a great service to his constituents. I hope that the Minister will remember not only the supplemental matters but the main thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. The Government frequently say that problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them. There may be some truth in that, but I submit that if more money were made available this problem could be solved.
I hope that the Government will act upon the advice of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to add three brief points to the picture accurately and fairly presented by the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and South Shields (Dr. Clark).
No area of public expenditure, local or national, has suffered greater reductions than the housing budget. In the past five years, central Government spending on public sector housing has been cut by about 50 per cent. Local authorities have reduced their expenditure commensurately. Following Government exhortations to reduce spending in that sector, local authorities have sought to avoid the penalties that would have been imposed on them if they had continued to spend according to need rather than abiding by the strictures of the Government.
Yet the housing sector is one of enormous need and severe lack of resources, this year as in previous years. It is important that the Minister should tell us now whether, when the Department sets about evaluating the amount of money that local authorities are to lose in the coming months, local government is to continue to lose money required for the housing repairs and construction so desperately needed especially but not only in the inner city areas.
It requires no special intelligence or experience to see that money that is not spent now will make the repair and renovation bills even greater in the future. With every year that passes without proper renovation schemes on estates now reaching the end of their useful life without wholesale renovation, more and more of those properties become empty because more and more of them become unhabitable, and so the housing stock is reduced. Without commensurate new building there is not the housing stock to meet the need.
One of the implications of reduced housing stock is that in areas in which the local community depends almost entirely on the public housing sector for their homes people have a simple choice. Either they remain in the community, in the area in which their families and forebears have lived, or they seek to move away not from choice but forced by the inability of the local authorities and effectively of the Government to produce the housing stock required. A serious effect of the Government's failure to fund housing construction and renovation as a priority is thus the breakdown of the inner city communities due to increasingly appalling conditions.
The Government may believe that it is necessary for all departments of Government and local government to cut their expenditure. It should be pointed out, however, that central Government have continued to increase their expenditure while local government has continued to cut back. There have been cuts in all areas of local government, while national public sector spending in areas unaffected by local government has continued to increase.
Clearly, some of those sectors are demand-led. Social security payments must be made, and the Government would claim that they cannot immediately affect the demand for that sector of Government expenditure. As has been said, however, demand in sectors of that kind is so high because instead of investing money to put people back to work the Government have to take money out of the DHSS budget to pay unemployment and other benefits. As the hon. Member for South Shields said, the Government should realise that the best investment is investment now in people, in jobs, in construction, in repairs and in renovation. Investment now will save and not increase expenditure in the future, both locally and nationally.
As the Government set about their assessment of local government and as they prepare the White Paper that we understand is to be published during the summer recess, the Government have the opportunity to say that to recompense the housing sector for all the cut-backs and the set-backs that it has suffered in recent months and years should now be a Government priority. If the Government deny people the opportunity of a decent home, they are storing up enormous problems for themselves whenever they next have to face the electorate in the future, for many of the electorate will still be living in public sector housing.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): All three hon. Members who have taken part in the debate at such an anti-social hour are to be congratulated on their genuine concern for housing and on the constructive suggestions which, on the whole, they put forward.
If I were to begin with a criticism, it would be that all three hon. Members seemed to concentrate exclusively on the role of the public sector in meeting the housing problems that remain. It would have been fairer had there been some recognition of the fact that the private sector can help tackle these problems.
Many people in local authority accommodation and on local authority waiting lists would like to, and can, buy their own homes. If local authorities developed a constructive partnership with the private sector, they could at no cost to themselves help to tackle some of the real problems that hon. Members have described.
Let me make that point more forcefully with regard to Islington. We have just received the bid from Islington for next year. It has made no provision whatever for the sorts of schemes about which I have been talking, or indeed for any type of low-cost home ownership initiative at all. On the other hand, in the submission that we received from Islington last year, when there was a different administration, there were proposals for improvement for sale and shared ownership. Dogma pursued in this way does not benefit the people whom the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is trying to help.
Had there been just one sentence in the hon. Gentleman's speech about empty properties in Islington, that would have lent more balance to his case. I notice that on 1 April 1982, 2,373 council-owned houses or flats in Islington were empty—a total of 5·8 per cent. of the stock — of which 734 dwellings had been vacant for more than a year. There is an opportunity which the local authority should grasp in the interests of those on the waiting lists.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister will notice from other figures in Islington's HIP bid that 1,500 of those 2,200 dwellings are currently undergoing repairs or improvements and that a further 200 or so are available for letting. Therefore, the figures are not quite so bleak as he appears to be suggesting.

Sir George Young: I am delighted that Islington recognises that, with 5·8 per cent. of its stock empty, this is an opportunity, at relatively low cost, to make real progress in housing.
I shall try to deal with the many points that the hon. Gentleman raised, but if I do not answer them all I shall write to him. He referred to ex-GLC properties. The GLC has a substantial programme for the renovation and improvement of its former stock and is committed to that under the transfer orders. The details, timing and priority for works to be carried out under the programme are matters for agreement between the GLC and the boroughs concerned, but the Government recognise the importance of this programme. The fact that the GLC's housing investment allocation is related essentially to its commitment to the transferred stock is a reflection of that.
The council received a significant increase in its allocation for the current year to help it fulfil those obligations, and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is an even larger increase in its money Bill provision for the current year which takes into account the substantial additional resources available to the council through capital receipts.
There are two further points. First, one cannot look at the GLC's HIP allocation in isolation. The more resources we allocate to the GLC, the less there are for boroughs such as Islington. Therefore, this is not quite so straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Secondly, the GLC is free to determine its priorities within the provision allowed in the money Act. If it chooses to use its capital receipts for activities other than the improvement programme, like all other authorities it is free to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also complained that the project control system was hindering his authority in its efforts to improve the housing stock. I know that in the past

Islington has alleged that the system prevents it from providing single family units, but I do not accept those criticisms.
The Department has intervened under project control in only 4 per cent. of all projects nationally, or 1 per cent. of all dwellings renovated. The intervention rate in London is admittedly higher than elsewhere, although not markedly so if the number of dwellings rather than the number of schemes is taken into account.
In the hon. Gentleman's own borough, out of 150 schemes submitted in the first six months of this year, my Department has intervened in only seven, or less than 5 per cent. of the total, which is only marginally above the national average. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot lay at our door the delays that he mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman's accounts of his authority differed substantially from the accounts given by his predecessor, Mr. George Cunningham. The progressive, enlightened authority about which we were told this morning differs radically from the extravagant, remote, loony-Left authority about which I heard only a few months ago.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for consistency between housing associations and local authorities on total indicative costs. That is a rather up-market subject for 8 o'clock in the morning, but we accept the desirability of achieving consistency between the two schemes. The basis on which supplementary cost criteria might be agreed with individual local authorities is still being considered and local authorities are still making points to us about our proposals.
At the beginning of the year we received complaints that delays in assessing local authority-funded housing association schemes were holding up housing association improvement programmes. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have now cleared the backlog of cases and taken steps to ensure that further delays in assessment are avoided.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke about the rented sector, he was speaking exclusively about the public rented sector. His party is in part responsible for the decline of the private rented sector, which has a role to play. I regret the opposition to shorthold, which in London provided an opportunity to make maximum use of the housing stock.
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point about listed buildings consent and the speeding up of decisions. There are no proposals to exhume Parker Morris. I was slightly surprised to hear a champion of local democracy asking the Government to tell him exactly what sort of houses he should be building.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to give consent to municipalisation more readily. That is not a sensible use of boroughs' HIP allocations. It adds nothing to the nation's housing stock and provides no work for the construction industry. I should prefer the boroughs to spend their allocations on new build or other methods that have a greater multiplier effect.
The disposals to housing associations are somewhat complicated. I give consent where it is shown that the housing association has a scheme that meets some minority need in London and has the skills and resources to carry it out, whereas the boroughs have not. We are anxious that the boroughs should not switch from the


ratepayer to the taxpayer some of the responsibility for meeting housing need in their areas of London. That is why we consider that matter carefully.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. ClarK) spoke about resources made available by the Government for housing. It is important that the House should have the figures, because they give a slightly different story from that which we heard earlier. Last year — that is for 1982–83 — we made about £2½ billion available in England for housing investment by local authorities. That represented an increase of about 6 per cent. in real terms on provision in the previous year and about a third in cash on authorities' actual expenditure in that year.
In addition, as both hon. Members were good enough to say, last October we offered authorities extra housing investment programme allocations in response to bids for housing investment generally, and we promised them retrospective allocations without limit for spending on home improvement grants in particular. As a result, we approved additional allocations of £200 million, including a substantial sum of money in Islington. Details of authorities' expenditure in 1982–83, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced last Monday, showed that, collectively, local authorities underspent the resources available to them by £800 million.
It is difficult to maintain the case that resources are inadequate when so much of those that are made available remain unspent. What we hear from Islington proves the Government's case that it is possible to spend the allocations. Islington did so, and I commend it for that. That puts the spotlight on those local authorities which failed to spend the allocations that we made available to them — allocations for which they asked before the beginning of the year.
This year we have again made about £2½ billion available for housing investment by local authorities, which is a fairly substantial increase on what was spent last year. This year the resources available for investment by the Housing Corporation are £690 million and for housing investment by new towns some £60 million. Those are significant amounts. We have rather grudging approval for the 80 per cent. commitment that we introduced last year—a commitment into which no previous Administration have ever entered.
I take the point about home improvement grants. They represent a carry-over commitment to 1984–85 and authorities are reluctant to approve any more until they know what their allocations will be for next year. We are aware of the problem. I cannot say anything about it today, but we hope to make a statement as soon as we can, in the interests of applicants and local authorities.
It is for the local authorities to determine their own priorities within the resources available.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister said that we could expect a statement about home improvement grants. Will a statement be made to the House or will it be made during the recess? It would be of great help to local authorities if they knew their position.

Sir George Young: I should mislead the hon. Gentleman if I said that a statement was likely in the next three or four days. We understand the urgency and we want to make progress as rapidly as possible.
How local authorities spend their money is up to them, but the key priority is to improve the condition of existing housing stock. Each hon. Member mentioned that and it was underlined by the English house condition survey. I was delighted with the response by local authorities to the evidence now available. Authorities spent about £430 million on home improvement grants last year—more than double the amount spent the year before. We expect them to spend even more, perhaps even half as much again, this year. We are helping them to do so by our promise of additional HIP allocations again this year if their spending on grants exceeds a predetermined threshold. The Government are also providing extra resources this year for enveloping — a technique pioneered by Birmingham city council to achieve significant economies of scale by improving whole terraces or neighbourhoods as part of a single project.
We are anxious to help the public sector. In about two and a half hours time we shall be considering the Housing and Building Control Bill in Committee upstairs. It introduces a right of repair for local authority tenents. Under the Bill, secure tenants will have the right, with the landlord's approval, to carry out repairs themselves, or to arrange for them to be caned out. They will then be reimbursed for the work, receiving no more than it would have cost their local authority to undertake the work itself. We shall issue a consultation document on how the details of the right to repair should work.
Some local authorities already operate similar schemes voluntarily. We believe that a statutory right to repair will do a great deal to relieve the sense of frustration and impotence felt by tenants when authorities fail to respond promptly and efficiently when notified of the need for repairs.
Reference was made to defective system-built houses, the Airey and other types built in the 1940s and 1950s, and to the more modern industrialised buildings of the 1960s and 1970s. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities recently published a report on the former types and it promises a report on the latter in the autumn. The Government have commissioned their own research from the Building Research Establishment. We shall, of course, look carefully at all the reports.
I cannot make a definitive statement now, but it might be helpful if I outline our policy. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of concern on the issue. In February we announced a special scheme of assistance for private owners of Airey houses. Since then we have been giving urgent attention with the BRE to the possibility of defects in other prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built in the same period. About 150,000 such houses were built in the 1940s and 1950s. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction intends to make a statement as soon as possible. I cannot anticipate what he might say, but we made it clear in February that we were willing to consider, in the light of the evidence, whether a more comprehensive scheme of assistance should be made available to private owners of such houses. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was anxious to extend that help beyond private owners.
The AMA report calls for a review of the HIP system and for specific subsidies to take account of the additional costs which it estimates will fall on local authorities to repair prefabricated reinforced concrete houses still in their ownership. We await its conclusions on the later industrialised building of the 1960s and 1970s. On the


earlier types, I must tell the House that the evidence in the AMA report simply does not justify its assertion that expenditure of £5 billion is needed to remedy the defects.
As regards the capital resources, we have always made it clear to authorities that we shall take account of the need for investment to remedy defects in all system-built dwellings when we determine next year's HIP allocations. We shall continue to honour that commitment, based on the evidence.
As regards the revenue consequences of investment, since 1 April 1981 capitalised repairs have been eligible for housing subsidy. About 100 local authorities will receive subsidy this year. For the others, no Exchequer assistance is available because they can reasonably be expected to look to their own resources—either rents or rate fund contributions — to meet their current expenditure on housing. We do not see the case for singling out this section of the housing budget for specific revenue assistance.
There were two parts to the hon. Gentleman's case. He referred also to resources for construction. I should like to say a few words on new housebuilding. The signs are now much more encouraging than they have been for many years. Private sector starts rose by about 20 per cent. in both 1981 and 1982. That recovery has been sustained so far this year. Starts in the five months to May were nearly one fifth up on the same period last year. In the public sector the trend towards lower starts which began under the Labour Government has finally been reversed. Starts last year were about 40 per cent. up on 1981, the year in which the trend flattened out. Starts to May this year are again higher than in the same five months of 1982. It is important to have the facts available, because one would not have guessed that from what Opposition Members said. But the facts speak for themselves.
I conclude by assuring all hon. Members of the Government's firm commitment to continue to provide a realistic level of resources for housing repair and construction from the public sector, but in turn I ask them to recognise that resources for housing are also available from the private sector. We owe it to our constituents and to those in housing need to use all the resources that are available to make real progress with tackling the waiting list and modernising this country's housing stock.

Merseyside (Urban Renewal)

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity even at this late hour to discuss the problems facing Merseyside and in particular unemployment which is the central issue for Merseyside.
I hope that in this debate the House will recognise the seriousness of the problems facing Merseyside. I have a faint hope that the Government will also recognise that something positive must be done to tackle the problems on Merseyside and realise that the solutions cannot be found in Merseyside itself.
I think that it is fair to say that the decline of Merseyside did not begin in 1979. The Liverpool economy has been in a more or less continuous decline since the beginning of the century. The underlying structural problems remain today, particularly the over-reliance on declining sectors, the port and the under-representation of growth sectors. These problems have been accentuated in recent years by the national recession and the general restructuring of industry. The effects are seen in the levels of investment, employment and unemployment, although the ramifications are felt throughout the city's economic, social and political fabric.
The city's traditional role as a conurbation and port is reflected in a local economy dominated by service industries. In 1977 service employment represented nearly 66·9 per cent. of all the city's jobs compared with 55·7 per cent. for the north west region and 58·8 per cent. for Britain as a whole.
Liverpool's economic fortune has always been closely tied to the port and its trading position and this has been particularly susceptible to fluctuations in world trade.
In addition, under-representation of growth industries, particularly in the manufacturing sector, has meant a continuing, indeed increasing, reliance on the service industries. Between 1971 and 1977, service employment in the city increased from 62·8 per cent. to 66·9 per cent. of all jobs.
Throughout the whole of this century, international patterns of trade have been changing gradually, with the focus shifting towards the south and east coast ports and away from west coast ports such as Liverpool. Between 1966 and 1976, the port of Liverpool's share of import and export tonnage handled in United Kingdom ports fell from 15·5 per cent. to 8·7 per cent.
Job losses resulting from that trend have been further accelerated by investment to modernise the port, which has increased its capital intensiveness, and the port's decline has led, in turn, to the loss of jobs in those parts of the local economy associated with the city's maritime trade — commerce, warehousing and all industries related to a port-based economy.
Attempts have been made at diversification, because many people saw that as the answer to the problem of tackling a declining industry which was still the centre of the local economy. Given the dependence on the port and the service sector generally, conscious efforts have been made to diversify the city's economic base. They began in earnest in the 1930s and were oriented towards attracting manufacturing industry to the large industrial estates established at Speke and Aintree by the then Liverpool corporation.
A further estate at Kirkby outside the city boundaries was established in the immediate post-war period. Post-war investment in manufacturing industry in the Liverpool area has been concentrated on those three peripheral estates. Those initiatives coincided with, and mirrored, Government policies. Since 1949, with one brief break between 1959 and 1963, Merseyside has experienced a variety of assisted area policies aimed at attracting new factories to the area and generating new jobs.
Between 1949 and 1967, there were two major phases of regional development policy. Judged by the declared aim of providing additional jobs, regional development policy in that period did little more than keep pace with the growing labour force.
It was argued that new industries would act as a catalyst, promoting an accelerated decline in already weak sectors, while the new industries took over in the longer term as the driving force of the economy. The year 1960 marked the beginning of a new phase that coincided with the British motor industry's expansion plans.
A total of 26,000 new jobs were created in three major vehicle plants on Merseyside — Ford at Halewood, Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Standard Triumph at Speke. It was said that
the years 1960 to 1967 were critical for Merseyside. Although, in the short-term, they saw neither a spectacular increase in the availability of jobs nor a reduction in unemployment, forces were set in motion which, in the long run, should forge a new and more successful economic base for the region. For the first time a new component has been added to the regional economy (the motor car industry) which is of a sufficient scale to exert a moulding influence on its future development. In the moulding process, an industrial structure predisposed to decline was being converted to one predisposed to growth.
Despite the optimism, it was clear by the late 1960s that Liverpool's fundamental economic problems remained and were beginning to become more acute. Unemployment and job losses continued to increase and between 1951 and 1971, male unemployment in Liverpool increased from 7·4 per cent. to 11·6 per cent. The number of jobs fell from 401,000 to 325,000—a reduction of nearly 20 per cent.
Accelerating rates of job loss and unemployment were particularly evident in the city centre and inner areas. Between 1961 and 1971, 86 per cent. of jobs lost were from the city centre, whose rate of decline doubled between 1966 and 1971. There was also a relative failure of the office-service sector to expand to fill the gaps left by the decline of the dock-related and manufacturing employment. In this context, Liverpool compared very unfavourably with other conurbation centres.
The problem of job loss was also accentuated by the relationship between the types of work that were declining and the types of workers moving out of the city. Personal service workers, semi-skilled workers and unskilled workers were placed in an increasingly difficult job position between 1966 and 1971; those with the fewest skills faced a rapid decline in suitable jobs, an overall decline in unskilled work and greater difficulty in travelling.
Important differences between the various areas' employment structures became apparent only at the standard industrial classification order level, and it is worth highlighting the fact that in nearly all locally significant SIC orders—those accounting for more than

1 per cent. of total employment—the rate of change experienced locally was less favourable than that occurring at the national level between 1971 and 1977. The only exception was public administration and defence, reflecting the increased importance of the public sector as a whole to local employment. The city's employment growth prospects, so far as they can be inferred from a broad analysis of employment structure and comparative trends, were not good in 1977 and have worsened considerably since then.
A small number of large firms accounted for a significant proportion of the city's employment in 1976; 0·3;6 per cent. of the city's firms provided nearly 40 per cent. of total employment. This contrasts with the numerically significant smaller firms sector — firms employing fewer than 50 people—which accounted for 93 per cent. of total firms but only 29 per cent. of total employment in 1976.
Of particular significance is the employment provided by very large manufacturing firms — those with 1,000-plus employees — which accounted for 59 per cent. of all the city's manufacturing jobs in 1977. An undue reliance on such large firms appears to have acted to the city's disadvantage. This is supported by post-1976 trends, which have witnessed further closures and large scale redundancies by such firms as British Leyland, Dunlop, Plessey and Meccano.
The degree of external control of the city's economy has also increased, particularly in the manufacturing sector; only one of Liverpool's largest manufacturing employers was locally based and controlled. Conversely, in the service sector there is still a relatively significant degree of local control, which partly reflects the greater numbers of, and employment in, smaller firms.
The 1970s saw the continuation of trends towards increasing female activity rates. The female share of total employment increased from 41 per cent. in 1971 to 42·5 per cent. in 1976. That reflected the increased participation by women generally in the labour market as a result of changing social attitudes and economic circumstances and the increasing service sector bias of the city's economy; in 1976, females accounted for 50 per cent. of total service sector employment, compared with 30 per cent. for manufacturing.
The relative increase in female employment is totally accounted for by the service sector. Moreover, even within this sector, female full-time employment has declined and the increase has been due entirely to a rise in part-time employment. The figures of the Merseyside data bank show a 17 per cent. increase in female part-time service employment between 1971 and 1975 compared with a 6 per cent. decrease in full-time employment. This shows that Merseyside's underlying problems are centered around the decline of traditional industries and a massive loss of job opportunities. No one on Merseyside believes that the area's problems can be resolved in the old traditional industries. The problems cannot be seen in isolation or resolved in isolation. The decline of the port of Liverpool has had a major effect on the hinterland of Merseyside. The policies that have been pursued by this Government and the previous Administration in attempting to overcome the problems have, in many instances, worsened the difficulties on the periphery of the city and brought Liverpool no advantage.
The House must recognise that Merseyside's problems are real and should not be brushed aside as the carping of


Merseyside Members. I do not believe that the solutions to the area's problems will be resolved by any of the attempts that are now being made. There have been attempts in the past to tinker with the problem by using instruments such as special development area status, enterprise zones and development corporations. These policies have been pursued for quite a long time and they been accompanied by further job losses. There is no sign of any end to the closures and redundancies and the rapid decline in job opportunities.
It would be wrong of the Government to ignore what is happening on Merseyside and to continue to offer the same old palliatives in search of a solution. The situation that prevails on Merseyside—it has been with us for some time—is made worse by the absence of hope. In the 1960s there was a feeling of new hope. It was felt that the industries coming to the area at that time would create the diversification that many thought would be necessary for the future of Liverpool specifically and for Merseyside generally. Those hopes have been dashed by the dramatic domino effect of major factory closures. I represented the Garston constituency when I was a Member of this place previously, and it was during the period of the previous Labour Government that 7,000 jobs were lost in my constituency alone. That is evidence that the problem has been with us for some time and that Governments have failed to arrest it or to find a solution.
The problems facing Merseyside are the problems facing Britain. I do not suggest that what is happening on Merseyside is not true of other areas. The Labour Government may have pursued policies that were different in emphasis and direction, but the downward spiral continued while that Government were in office. There was a decline in job opportunities and in the fabric of the city. Unemployment is a cancer that seeps into every aspect of life in the city. It has clearly had an effect on the people who live in Liverpool and on Merseyside. The only surprise about the events at Toxteth two years ago was that they took so long to erupt. Nobody welcomed them. We want the problems that led to the events at Toxteth to be solved, but the present silence might be misread by the Government. If the Government do not solve the problem, we might have an even more serious repeat performance.
As I have said, the problems of Merseyside cannot be reviewed or resolved in isolation. That is proven by the fact that the policies that the previous Labour Government pursued with good intentions did not solve the problems of the city. We must make a proper assessment of what we intend to do about the decline in some of our traditional industrial centres. It is an example of the system's disregard for areas in the north that created the nation's great wealth that those areas are now being left obsolete to decay. No real effort to solve the problem is being made. The people of Liverpool and Merseyside reflected their views at the general election. If the threat to major traditional industrial conurbations continues, what has happened in Merseyside will spread.
I hope that this debate will draw the Government's attention to the problems that lie below the surface in Liverpool and Merseyside. They face major problems that are endemic in the system in which we live. I do not suppose that I shall ever persuade a Tory Minister to adopt real Socialist policies to overcome the problems that face the people and the city, but the Government disregard circumstances in major cities at their peril. The Government are pursuing policies that are based on a

magic formula whereby cuts in public expenditure will, by a mechanism that is unknown to most people, find their way to manufacturing industries and regenerate our manufacturing base. It has been going on for some time, and there is no sign that that mechanism exists by which public expenditure cuts result in massive investment in places such as Liverpool and Merseyside, and regions such as the north-west and the north-east. In those regions there is a feeling that the Government do not have any regard for the plight of the jobs and industries in them.
I know that the Government will set their face against my claim that the only way forward for cities such as Liverpool lies in providing public expenditure. I am not talking about the sort of public expenditure that is used for purposes other than the creation of real jobs and the regeneration of industry in that area. We must face the facts. For example, the poll once employed 20,000 people and it is now employing fewer than 3,000. Indeed, demands are being made for more redundancies and voluntary severances to reduce that figure still further. The area was also dependent on the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, and in the 1950s it employed more than 20,000 men. Again, that figure is now down to about 3,000. There has been no compensation through the introduction of new and real long-term jobs into the area to make up for the massive drain on jobs that has gone on throughout the post-war period.
I hope that the Government will consider the situation on Merseyside and that they will stop offering palliatives almost as if they were offering aspirin for a cancer that is deeply rooted into this, and many other cities in Britain. I also hope that the Government will recognise that the people of that city have been tolerant. However, I believe that that tolerance has come to an end. The Government will face major problems unless something positive is done very soon.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Many of the technical points about the problems of Merseyside have been eloquently dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I shall concentrate briefly on the non-city areas of Merseyside. The problems there are identical to those of the city. The areas are full of ancient and well-established industries, which have suffered during the past four years. Indeed, industry has begun to fail, due sometimes to lack of investment and sometimes to changing technology. It is also beginning to be neglected by the Government.
I think, for example, of the coal, glass, chemical, printing and engineering industries. In each and every case there has been a decline in the employment prospects for Merseyside. Indeed, in my constituency, and those constituencies bordering it, there has been a remarkable loss of jobs in the glass industry. As I have said before in the House, the glass industry is dependent on the construction industry, because, of course, glass is used in building.
I draw the attention of the House to the written questions that I asked about the state of the construction industry in the past four years. In both the public and private sectors the number of new starts has declined steadily. That has meant, in turn, that less glass has been required. The glass industry has suffered not only from that problem but from the beginnings of import penetration. I do not wish to repeat the answers that I


received—which are on the record—when I asked for help in that respect. Two of the coal pits are in, and on the borders of my constituency. There has been a decline in the coal industry, and again we face a threat there.
However, as my hon. Friend said, Merseyside's problem is much deeper than that. It is reflected in the questions that I asked about employment in St. Helens travel-to-work area. The figures showed that 25 per cent. of those unemployed had been out of work for more than 12 months. An increasing number of young people were unemployed, and had failed to obtain skill training or to develop a career on leaving school. Merseyside needs investment and help. Without them, we shall not have the industrial base that will be so necessary for the future. Without that industrial base there will be no training opportunities, and the youngsters in the area will not have the skill training for future careers.
At the same time we are building a time bomb, because as people fall out of work, stay out of work and lose the chance to improve their lot, resentment slowly and sadly grows. Merseyside, and especially St. Helens, are neglected. Unless the Government stop giving out simple palliatives and consider the problem in depth, and realise that the local work force contains much inherent skill and ability, and say, "What should we do to provide new development", I warn the Government that Merseyside will erupt, because one cannot for ever kick and one cannot for ever hold down. Our young people are not getting a chance, our industry is losing out, and we need help. I have asked through written questions, oral questions and through a speech made in the House for help for Merseyside, and especially for St. Helens. I ask again for that help today, because without it life will be extremely bleak.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). On the analysis of the problems facing Merseyside there is little between us, but the gap widens when it comes to the evaluation of current initiatives, and it broadens into a huge gulf when we consider the future. I do not share the doom-laden Wagnerian scenario with which both hon. Members ended their speeches. That was a policy of despair, which the Government reject.
The area suffers from an appalling legacy of long-standing economic decline. It has a poor physical environment and a low level of economic activity, which mutually reinforce a downward spiral. The rundown of the port, about which the hon. Member for Garston spoke, with the changing patterns of trade, the associated decline of a port-related industry and of a coherent manufacturing sector on Merseyside are elements that have contributed to the present position. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman invited me to implement Socialist solutions. It will come as no surprise to him that I do not propose to do that, even after having been up all night. The Government recognise the problems, and successive Governments have taken steps to encourage improvement in Merseyside's economic and social conditions. Examples include designation as a special development

area, the advanced factory building programme, motorway and trunk road building, and special financial assistance under the urban programme to improve conditions in the inner areas. The inner area of Liverpool is one of the seven inner city partnership areas in England, and other Merseyside local authorities have also received support through the urban programme.
It is worth putting this in perspective, because not all is gloom on Merseyside. Recently Cammell Laird obtained an order for an accommodation rig, and Vauxhall has announced the introduction of double shift working at Ellesmere Port. There have been announcements of substantial investments by, among others, Higsons brewery, Shell and Ford. English Industrial Estates has switched its building emphasis to the smaller units and announced that in 1982 it managed to let a greater number of units than before. British American Tobacco's small workshops in south Brunswick docks in Toxteth have proved popular, and small firm workshops are being developed at St. Helens and Birkenhead. In addition, the Merseyside task force and the Manpower Services Commission have launched a number of special training initiatives on Merseyside, including three commercial business training centres, and assisted in the setting up of the information technology centres, of which seven are in operation on Merseyside, and a further four have been announced.
The Merseyside Development Corporation has been one of the major initiatives over the past few years. It is now one of two urban development corporations in the country charged with the task of regenerating 860 acres of disused dockland in Liverpool, Birkenhead and Sefton.
The Speke enterprise zone, which was established in August 1981, includes the 1 million sq. ft. factory formerly owned by British Leyland.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South urged more housing investment. Local authorities have been allocated considerable financial resources to improve housing conditions. In recent years, the housing corporation has given substantial support to local housing associations.
The Merseyside task force is an added ingredient intended to promote new and imaginative approaches to tackling seemingly intractable problems and to encouraging the public and private sectors, with local communities, to work together.
There has been a frontal attack on derelict land in the area. We have mounted a £10 million programme for 1983–84, including a unique experiment at the urban fringe through "Operation Groundwork". These factors together add up to a massive programme of central Government support for the area.
Housing is a vital element. Overall, the housing capital provision for Merseyside in 1983–84, including the availability of a prescribed proportion of capital receipts, means that the authorities should be able to improve upon their level of housing activity in 1982–83. A further £5 million above normal allocations has been set aside specifically for innovative local authority housing schemes. Examples of these are the housing action programme at Edge lane in Sefton and the scheme currently being developed at Woodchurch on the Wirral.
The housing corporation's allocation to Merseyside of £53 million for the current year has been boosted by over £5 million for special housing initiatives, including additional schemes to promote shared ownership, the


development of the Anglican cathedral precinct site, and special housing association activity to improve housing conditions in the Princes boulevard area.
The Liverpool inner city partnerships allocation of £24·1 million, geared primarily to tackling the industrial and environmental problems of the inner area, has been supplemented by a special package of projects aimed at fostering tourism, which total almost £3·4 million.
The Merseyside Development Corporation has been given the powers and the resources to reclaim the extensive derelict areas of disused docks, to rehabilitate former dock buildings and to seek out profitable private sector development and make use of them. In particular, a vast derelict area, which includes the former south docks, is well on the way to complete redevelopment in preparation for the international garden festival in 1984. This is one of the most substantial inner city regeneration schemes in post-war Britain and it is expected to attract more than 3 million visitors to the area. That will leave a legacy of lasting benefit in terms of social and recreational facilities and housing and industrial development.
On 15 February this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a special additional allocation of £10 million for derelict land reclamation on Merseyside. The programme gives priority to those projects where there is a real prospect of after use—for example, industrial or housing development following reclamation, sites in public sector ownership which have been entered in the land register, and sites where reclamation would contribute to the general uplift of a particular area and complement existing initiatives, such as at the Knowsley industrial park.
The Merseyside task force has been given no special powers. Under the leadership and direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, its main function has been to work with local agencies —local authorities, private companies and voluntary groups—and to be part of the team charged with the task of getting individual projects under way. Priority has been given to projects which would bring vacant land and buildings into use; help

revive local business confidence; directly improve living conditions; and encourage new ways for public and private local organisations to work together and to involve the local community. Their initiatives include the Stockbridge village, about which I am sure both hon. Gentlemen know, Minster court and the community refurbishment scheme. They are good examples of how existing elements of public sector funding can be packaged together in an imaginative way to meet problems that have dragged on for years and would have continued to do so.
Support for local businesses is equally important. Work under way to improve the Knowsley industrial park includes upgrading the environment, improving the road network and establishing an association to represent companies' views. A private sector secondee with the task force has worked with local companies advising them on a wide range of individual problems. The Anglican cathedral precinct site lies at the heart of Liverpool—
It being Nine o'clock on Tuesday morning, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

State Schools (Music Teaching)

9 am

Sir Humphrey Atkins: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a humble petition from 1,500 citizens of the borough of Spelthorne in the county of Surrey and neighbouring districts.

The petition sheweth
That Section 61(1) of the Education Act 1944, which prohibits payment by parents or others for the teaching of instrumental music to pupils in state schools, operates against the wishes of many school governors, parents, teachers and children.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will pass legislation amending Section 61(1) of the said Act to allow this long-standing practice to continue.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Hemerdon Mine, Dartmoor

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: The House has sat all night discussing a range of important subjects. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the last debate should deal with one of the most exciting finds in this country this century. It is a mine which, if exploited, would be among the dozen largest tungsten mines in the world, producing sufficient tungsten for the United Kingdom's entire consumption, with more left for export. It could create 500 to 600 new jobs and benefit our balance of payments by at least £20 million per annum for 20 years. That is the first debate that I have introduced as the Member of Parliament representing the South Hams division. Hon. Members will remember that until the general election I represented Liverpool, Wavertree. My interest was related to the problems of the cities and the people living there. I shall continue that interest as well as developing new interests more fitting to a rural constituency. The problems of urban sprawl and the effect that that has on agricultural land will be a matter for which I shall have especial regard.
I have pleasure in seeing my hon. Friend the distinguished new Minister in his place this morning. He is as vigorous as ever at this early hour. I congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for planning cannot answer the debate. The issues cover planning, environmental preservation, conservation of the landscape and the rights of people affected by mining. I well understand that, as a planning decision is pending, he would find difficulty in saying too much.
The present site of the Hemerdon mine is just outside the national park boundaries on the edge of Dartmoor. It is a most attractive part of the country, although identified in the Devon county council's structure plan as an area for mineral extraction. The only evidence of any mining for tungsten is a cluster of old buildings on top of a hill with a V-shaped valley dropping about 200 to 300 feet below, where there are a number of private houses and cottages, and in all about 40 to 50 of my constituents live there. I have a panoramic photograph of the area prepared by the mining company, which may assist the Minister when he replies.
The valley and the old mining buildings would disappear if planning consent were granted. Some of the buildings would fall into the vast pit that would be created. It will be about 850 m long by 450 m wide, and it will be some 600 ft deep, out of which 105 million tonnes of rock will be extracted over about 20 years. Other buildings would need to be demolished to make room for the crushing plant, which crushes the granite and extracts the tungsten, and other complex machinery.
Up the other side of the V-shaped valley there is an area known as Crown hill down. This would also be affected by the tipping of the waste deposits. Once the mining starts, the area will be dramatically altered. Rumour has it that the pit may be worked even below the 600 ft mark, so rich is the tungsten find.
There is no commitment by the mining corporation that, after the mine has ceased to be worked, the pit will be landscaped. The waste tip will be landscaped, but it will be about 20 years after mining starts before even that will

take place. This could be one of the biggest mining developments in Europe, which must dramatically alter what is currently a quiet, tranquil rural scene, with farms and small houses.
The mine would not be alone. Scars are evident on the west side of Dartmoor. These are the china clay workings, which have been there for some time. About 37 per cent. of English China Clay mining falls within the national park, and 18 per cent. of Watts, Blake and Bearne. The tungsten mine is outside the national park.
While the tungsten find must be one of the most significant in the country, there are issues that must be resolved, I believe, before planning consent is granted by the Department of the Environment. The county council must also bear some responsibility for seeing that what happens is in the best interests of both good mining practice and the environment. The tungsten output from the mine is calculated as being worth between £20 million and £30 million a year. While one must be aware of the commercial potential, it is necessary to balance that with the conservation interests.
The importance of tungsten to this country is well known. It is the hardest and densest substance, with a melting point of 5,410 deg, whereas iron needs only 1,530 deg to melt. Tungsten is widely used in the armaments industry, for electric light bulbs, biro tips and the hardening of steel. Until now we have imported our tungsten from mines mostly in China and in North America, and some from Australia.
In view of the amount of tungsten all over the world, do we need to exploit this mine? Some argue that we do not. The argument is that with prices falling from $170 per tonne in 1977 to only $81 now, it is not necessary to devastate the countryside or at any rate to blight the area. Another argument is that even if the company obtained planning permission it probably could not afford to mine successfully. It might therefore try to sell its rights to a business which would hope to expand the mine if and when the price of tungsten rose. There is some force in that argument. What happens, though, to the mine must be a commercial decision for private enterprise rather than a decison for the Secretary of State for the Environment or Devon county council.
I have criticisms to make of the way in which the Government have pursued the planning application. The plan was submitted by the mining corporation on 16 October 1981 but a public inquiry did not take place until 7 September 1982 and continued until 20 October of that year. I do not understand why the Government are dragging their feet. No decision has been made. The Government are only too quick to criticise local councils about delays in planning inquiries, so why should they sit on this application for two years? Will the Minister lean on his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the application is resolved at an early opportunity?
The mine is not a new discovery. The area was mined as long ago as the 19th century. In 1834 a family trust was established between the Woolcombes and the Strouds. The two families amalgamated their mineral rights in a joint venture. The descendants of those families are active and concerned today and I pay tribute to both families for the help that they have given me in preparing for this debate.
Until the early 1900s, the area was mined for arsenic and tin. It is still possible to see pools in the Tamar river glowing a green shade with arsenic deposits. One can also


see the specially high chimneys built to draw the smoke and thus avoid killing the people who had to stoke coal and rock into the fires in which there was arsenic.
The mine was worked during the first and second world wars for tungsten and tin. It was also worked for one day during the Korean war, but the machinery collapsed from old age and it was assumed that that was the end.
In the late 1960s, however, an international entrepreneur, Mr. Richardson, purchased a 40-year mining lease in the belief that great deposits of tungsten could still he found. He was right. To develop the mine he travelled the world raising funds and in return giving promissory notes to people willing to invest. In the fullness of time, the Hemerdon Mining and Smelting Company Ltd. was registered in Bermuda. The "grubstakers", as they were called, converted their stakes into shares and subsequently Mr. Richardson left the board but not before the company obtained planning permission to carry out extensive tests on the mine.
The problem was that the Hemerdon Mining and Smelting Company of Bermuda was by now virtually penniless. It therefore sold 50 per cent. of its rights to Amax, a large American-based mining company which agreed to put in funds and expertise. Some £7 million has been spent on exploratory work, which proved far more rewarding than could possibly have been imagined. Against that background, planning permission was sought two years ago and the company has talked about investing about £50 million if successful.
Some may say that it is a pity that of the two companies involved one is based in Bermuda and the other in the United States. Billiton, however—a subsidiary of Shell, which is 60 per cent. Dutch and 40 per cent. British-owned—entered into an agreement with the Hemerdon Mining and Smelting Company for an option to buy out its interest to develop the mine if planning permission were granted. There would then be a 50–50 division between Amax and Billaton and there would then of course be a British interest.
So far, I have dealt with the commercial issues. Everything may sound fine and dandy, but there are problems. Digging such a deep mine will have enormous ramifications for the area. Roads will disappear and one or two will have to be re-routed. Houses will be destroyed, homes will disappear and land will no longer be fanned. Visually the area will change from a tranquil valley with a meandering river to a major mining development, perhaps not quite like the American gold rush, but certainly transforming the outskirts of Dartmoor.
There are also fears of dust clouds. As one person living in the valley put it, the same wind that Amax said might cover householders in the valley with dust blows directly down Smallhanger valley, which opens like a funnel onto a large residential area of Plympton and could also scatter dust over the side of the national park.
It is therefore right that Devon county council has been strict in its requirements and has entered into a contract with the development corporations under section 52 of the Act, so that even if the Secretary of State gives planning permission the developer will be obliged to undertake a range of environmental improvements, landscaping and conservation work before being allowed to turn the first sod.
I wonder, however, whether the Devon county council planners have the experience to put all the necessary conditions into the agreement. If they have not already

done so, they might do well to consult planners in other parts of the world with first-hand experience of tungsten extraction, to seek advice on the kind of things that can happen when such a mine is developed and to ensure that all contingences are included in the section 52 agreement. The council may already have done that, but it is worth making that point to the Minister today.
Besides commercial exploitation and job creation, there is great concern that the interests of people living in the valley may have been overlooked in the enthusiasm to exploit the mine, and it is about my constituents that I am primarily concerned today. The plight of people living in the valley in the shadow of the mine must be a matter of concern. They are in a unique and unenviable position. If the Department of the Environment gives planning consent, they will have no rights at all to compel the mining corporation to purchase their properties or their land when they wish to sell.
The sole right of people living in the area will be to wait until the mining corporation wishes to buy their homes because it cannot progress with its mining scheme. If tungsten prices continue to fall, it may be a decade before the developers decide to do that. During that time my constituents' homes will be blighted. My constituents will be able to sell only at a loss and some may have difficulty in selling at all if they wish. They will certainly have difficulty borrowing money on the security of their present homes. Indeed, a major clearing bank has already refused to lend one constituent money on the security of his house to develop his private firm.
If the developer were not a private corporation but a Government Department or a statutory undertaker, there would be no problem about compelling the statutory undertaker to purchase the houses and to pay proper compensation. The difficulty arises because the developer is not a public corporation but a private one. Although public corporations have to follow certain regulations laid down in the planning Acts and pay the right compensation when the householder or property owner wishes to sell, no similar arrangement is provided by the Town and Country Planning Acts in the case of a private developer.
This must be of principal concern, and the Minister will at once appreciate the devastating consequences should planning permission be granted without an agreement first being reached between the private householders and the mining consortium. I should like him to deal with this point when he replies.
Perhaps a way forward would be for the development company to enter into personal contracts with each of the householders and land owners affected — a kind of section 52, not with the county council, but with the individuals. Such an agreement would set out the rights of each of the householders so that they could compel the mining company, when it suited them, to purchase their property at the market rate without taking into account the depreciation in its value because of the potential mining operation.
I am not speaking of many properties — 20 at the most, eight of which will be swamped by the pit, plant and crushing equipment; three or four more at the edge of the pit; and perhaps half a dozen outside. It is not good enough for the mining company to say it wishes to wait a year or two until all the matters are sorted out with the county council to its satisfaction. What about my constituents?
I make only limited criticism of the company, which has behaved well. It is understandably reluctant to


purchase properties until it knows that it has planning consent from the Secretary of State and that all the section 52 arrangements have been sorted out with the county council. We are talking of perhaps £250,000 compensation, whereas £400 million or £500 million could be the value of the tungsten extraction.
There is no reason why my constituents, through no fault of their own, should be financially at a disadvantage. They should not be placed in a worse position in which they can neither borrow nor sell, because a corporation wishes to do some mining.
I have been greatly assisted in understanding the problems by the English China Clay Company, by the residents affected and their legal advisers, and by the descendants of the two families which in 1834 set up the trust. I also thank the general manager of the mining consortium who has been so speedy to respond with information and photographs, as well as the Sparkwell branch of the Conservative party, which so readily arranged for me to meet the various parties involved.
There is much good will, and I hope that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved before the outcome of planning consent is known. The mine offers a new prospect of wealth and job creation in the south-west. I hope that the Minister will give his blessing to the scheme, but ensure that the rights of the individuals are not prejudiced.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate, and I thank him for his generous comments about my recent appointment.
As a north-west Member, I am aware of the effectiveness of my hon. Friend when he represented Wavertree in Liverpool, and I know that he will be equally effective as the hon. Member for South Hams. I can well understand why my hon. Friend would wish to take an early opportunity of bringing before the House a matter of such importance to his new constituency.
Mining is, of course, a well-established industry in this part of the south-west. China clay has been worked for many years on a large scale in the area. The tungsten prospect at Hemerdon was discovered in 1867 and was worked intermittently during the first and second world wars. Hemerdon lies some 1½ miles south of the Dartmoor national park.
I shall briefly describe my Department's policies for indigenous mineral resources and show how the Hemerdon project fits within their framework. Successive Governments have encouraged the exploitation of the United Kingdom's own resources of minerals. They provide our industry with a stable and secure supply of raw materials. It provides employment at mines and in processing activities. In this case, the project's 350 jobs would be most welcome, and to that would be added further jobs, locally and elsewhere, servicing the project.
My Department encourages the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources. It pays the Institute of Geological Sciences to conduct the regional geochemical and the mineral reconnaissance programmes. These are designed to indicate areas containing economic mineralisation for mining houses to evaluate.
At Hemerdon, scientists from the Institute of Geological Sciences have collaborated with the developers. Their work is of wide value for the recognition of granite cusps, and preliminary indications of the cusps' mineral potential.
The Department also assists mining companies with their exploration programmes. It pays mineral exploration grants of up to 35 per cent. of approved exploration expenditure. The Hemerdon project has received substantial grants. Once a mineral prospect has been thoroughly examined, my Department can provide selective financial assistance to aid the subsequent development of a mine.
Tungsten has a wide variety of important industrial uses. Although demand has declined in the United Kingdom in recent years, the long-term trend of world consumption is upwards. Consumption has broadly correlated with the level of economic activity. It is reasonable to assume that demand will increase both in the United Kingdom and western Europe generally as the world economy improves.
Being an international business, mining attracts overseas investment to the United Kingdom. It is the policy of the Government to encourage foreign concerns to invest in this country, to bring their skills to it, and to create employment. The project is backed by Amax Incorporated of the United States of America. Billiton (UK) Ltd., a member of the Royal Dutch/Shell group, also has an option to participate, subject to planning permission. Whoever controls projects of this nature, there is likely to be uncertainty about their timing, as a commercial judgment has to be made on when they should be brought into production.
An application for planning permission for the project was made to Devon county council in October 1981. In view of the scale of the proposed development, and its possible environmental impact, that was called in by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment. A local public inquiry was held in Plymouth in September and October 1982. My Department gave evidence at that inquiry.
The inspector submitted his report on 7 June. It is now formally before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for consideration. It is likely to be some time before he reaches his decision. The inspector's report is a very lengthy document, which requires thorough study.
On the planning aspects, the House will appreciate that the inspector's report is, in effect, sub judice. But I can say that evidence was given at the inquiry on the matters of dust emission and property acquisition to which my hon. Friend referred. That included the developers' willingness to negotiate the purchase of properties affected. These matters will be carefully considered along with all the other relevant issues in coming to a decision. It is well appreciated that the uncertainty over the outcome should be ended as soon as possible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will have that very much in his mind.
I wish to make some general remarks about the use of conditions in planning permissions. The power to impose conditions on planning permissions gives local planning authorities—and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in cases referred to him—flexibility in the control of development. By judicious use of conditions, tailored carefully to the circumstances of the


proposed development, authorities can ensure that there are environmental and other safeguards. Such safeguards may allow the granting of a permission which might otherwise have had to be refused. But conditions should not be imposed as a matter of course. They should meet the tests of being necessary, relevant both to planning and to the development proposed, enforceable and precise. They should also be reasonable.
Conditions are therefore a very useful tool, but they must be used in a positive fashion to promote and facilitate

development, and with full regard to the fact that most conditions impose costs which have in the end to be met by consumers.
Once again I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Nine o'clock am.